Preamble

The House met at half past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — TRANSPORT

Seat Belts

Mr. Jessel: asked the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects to introduce regulations on wearing seat belts.

Mr. Sheerman: asked the Secretary of State for Transport if he will give details of the type of information which he intends to give the public concerning seat belt wearing; when it will be published; and how it will be distributed.

The Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mrs. Lynda Chalker): My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State laid the wearing of seat belt regulations before Parliament in draft on 6 July. They had to be relaid due to a minor correction on 13 July.
After the regulations have been approved, we shall use press and leaflets to inform the public about the starting date of the new law, whom it will cover, how to apply for medical exemption and how to improve the comfort and fit of seat belts. We shall then have further publicity shortly before the day when seat belt wearing becomes compulsory.

Mr. Jessel: As for timing, is my hon. Friend aware that every week's delay in putting the regulations into force costs 14 lives and about 200 serious injuries? It is now almost a year since the House, by a majority of 77, voted for the law—the House of Lords having done so earlier by a majority of 40. Will the Department of Transport hasten to comply with the clear will of both Houses of Parliament and bring forward the day from the twenty-third Monday after the regulations have been voted on, which has been suggested, and put the rules into action as quickly as possible?

Mrs. Chalker: Nobody regrets more than I the loss of life, but people do not need compulsion to wear seat belts. The provisions of the Transport Act 1981 require us to lay a statement of proposals before Parliament three months before the regulations are laid for approval. We issued a consultative document last December, which went to all representative organisations and the general public. It is important to get this matter right. Seat belt wearing has been more effective in those countries, such as Australia and Sweden, which took their time, rather than in those countries that rushed their introduction. We shall speed the matter as soon as Parliament completes its necessary consultation and approval procedure.

Mr. Sheerman: Does the Minister agree that it was anticipated by her predecessors in the Department that compulsory wearing of seat belts would be introduced by late this summer? That seems to be getting further and further away, and perhaps dangerously near to a general election. That would worry many of us, because this type of measure has been put off by that kind of event before. Is there any possibility that measures to improve protection for children in cars could be brought in earlier? Seventy children lose their lives every year in cars. That would be an improvement—

Mr. Speaker: Order. It is not really fair, because we had a preamble as well as an argument after the question.

Mrs. Chalker: I shall see whether the provisions for the protection for children, which I had intended to introduce at the same time as compulsory seat belt wearing, can be brought forward. We have not sought to delay bringing forward this measure. We want to get it right. I believe that that is the sensible way to proceed.

Mr. Lawrence: Before my hon. Friend introduces the regulations will she consider the unfairness of allowing an exemption for driving examiners—half of whose passengers are competent drivers—and refusing an exemption for driving instructors, nearly all of whose passengers in the earlier stages are incompetent?

Mrs. Chalker: Because an examiner should not intervene during a test until the last moment, to see whether the provisional driver has corrected the fault, we thought it necessary to give examiners the right not to wear seat belts if they felt that there could be a hazard. It is a different matter for instructors. They should be setting an example. The British School of Motoring has advised that seat belts must be worn at all times during tuition by pupils and instructors. I believe that is right.

Mr. Allan Roberts: Will the Minister consider exempting taxi drivers from having to wear seat belts? Is she aware that taxi drivers are frightened of being attacked and robbed while wearing seat belts and not being able to protect themselves?

Mrs. Chalker: We have already included that among the exemptions in the regulations, for the reason the hon. Gentleman cites.

Mr. Stott: The Minister will be aware that it is right and proper to allow sufficient time for adequate and appropriate consultation on these matters, but she will recall what the hon. Member for Twickenham (Mr. Jessel) said earlier. It is almost a year since I stood at the Dispatch Box and asked the House to approve the seat belt regulations. I accept that the hon. Lady is not responsible for the business of the House, but will the regulations be debated in the House before the Summer Recess?

Mrs. Chalker: That is not a matter for me. I should like the regulations to be debated soon and I am using my best endeavours of persuasion to ensure that that happens.

GLC (Transport Policies and Programme Document)

Mr. Proctor: asked the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects to receive the Greater London Council's transport policies and programme document.

The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. David Howell): All county and metropolitan councils have been asked to submit their transport policies and programme documents by the end of July.

Mr. Proctor: Would it not be in the best interests of London's travelling public if London Transport were removed from the GLC's sticky paws and placed temporarily with his Department so that a study can be made of the possibility of privatising the entire operation? Would that not be in the best interests of London's transport consumers?

Mr. Howell: From bitter experience, there is something to be said for a changed structure within which London Transport can work. I await with interest the report from the Select Committee on Transport on the right structure for the administration of London's transport. I understand that the report is due soon. I shall study it with great interest, as will many others.

Mr. Christopher Price: Does the Minister's last answer mean that the Government now believe in new quangos and have given up their desire to reduce them? Does the Minister agree that London Transport fares are far too high? If the GLC puts a plan to the Minister under which, gradually, they can be reduced in real terms, will he agree to it?

Mr. Howell: My last answer means what it said. I think that Londonders have had a raw deal in transport organisation. New thoughts are not out of place. I hope that the GLC will produce a firm and sensible plan. I detect some signs that the GLC now accepts that its "Fare's Fair" experiment was unrealistic and unworkable nonsense and, therefore, I have hopes that it will produce a sensible plan. I should like lower fares and lower costs. They are too high. The plan must be formulated around that aim.

Mr. Greenway: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Labour-controlled GLC is breaking an election pledge in deciding to go ahead with the new bypass and terminating it at the White Hart roundabout in Northolt? Does he agree that that will have catastrophic effects on local people and does he not deplore that appalling behaviour?

Mr. Howell: I note what my hon. Friend says. He will have enough experience of politics to know that election pledges are not always fulfilled to the letter.

Mr. Robert Hughes: Will the Secretary of State undertake to have no truck with the nonsense expressed by his hon. Friend the Member for Basildon (Mr. Proctor)? More important, will he consider discussing not only the Select Committee's report but the GLC's proposals? May we have a firm assurance that before coming to a conclusion he will publish a Green Paper so that all the ideas can be thoroughly canvassed and discussed before any change is made in London Transport's structure?

Mr. Howell: I cannot give an undertaking now about the precise way in which we shall carry the debate forward, but I hope that the GLC will have some views on a changed and improved structure for transport for London and the surrounding counties. That would be desirable. The chairman of London Transport, among others, has made his views known, and other views have been offered to the Select Committee. We should wait for its conclusions.

British Rail (Dispute)

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: asked the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the consequences of prolonged industrial action to British Rail.

Mr. Cryer: asked the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on industrial relations on British Railways.

Sir David Price: asked the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement about public investment in British Rail in the light of recent industrial disputes.

Mr. David Howell: I shall be making a statement later today about the current industrial action on the railways. But it is clear that strike action can only have the most damaging effects on the future prospects of the industry and its work force. The present strike is bleeding the industry of vital resources, which could be used for better and more modern equipment.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Perhaps hon. Members would prefer to be called to ask a question after the statement has been made. I shall call them then if they do not ask a question now. Hon. Members who are called now cannot expect to be called later.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Can my right hon. Friend confirm that prolonged industrial action will have a detrimental effect upon investment in further electrification and, what is more, could affect the private sector, in that such desirable projects as the Channel tunnel are unlikely to receive the Government's blessing because British Rail will not be in receipt of the infrastructure investment that is vital for that project? Does my right hon. Friend agree that that project would create substantial employment in all parts of the country and be beneficial to the regions?

Mr. Howell: Prolonged industrial action and strikes can do nothing but harm to all aspects of the railways' future.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: Now that the Leader of the Opposition is to meet Sir Peter Parker with the object of resolving the dispute, will the Prime Minister do likewise?

Mr. Robert Atkins: Is the Leader of the Opposition taking Sid Weighell with him?

Mr. Howell: Hon. Members should await my statement.

London (Public Transport)

Sir John Biggs-Davison: asked the Secretary of State for Transport if he is yet in a position to make a statement about the future of public transport in and near London.

The Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Reginald Eyre): My right hon. Friend is still considering the future organisation of transport in the London area and awaits with interest the report of the Select Committee on Transport. In the meantime, we have made it clear to the GLC that what is needed is a decent transport system for London with lower fares and better value for money within the considerable resources available to London Transport.


We have asked the GLC to prepare a plan on that basis. How it measures up to the task will be a factor in decisions about organisational change.

Sir John Biggs-Davison: Is my hon. Friend aware of the reliance of many of my constituents on the Epping-Ongar and Central line of London Transport, which is the responsibility of the Greater London Council, upon which my constituents' local authorities are not represented? Will the Secretary of State, therefore, expedite proposals for setting up a public authority for London transport which is able to do justice to all its users?

Mr. Eyre: I appreciate the complications, which will be taken into account when we consider the Select Committee on Transport's report and my right hon. Friend's proposals.

Mr. Jay: Is the Minister aware that his total inactivity on London Transport affairs for months is doing as much damage to London as his inactivity over the rail dispute is doing to the country as a whole?

Mr. Eyre: The right hon. Gentleman should understand that the damage to transport in London was caused by the ill-conceived GLC "Fare's Fair" policy. That is why my right hon. Friend is right to call on the GLC to prepare sensible plans to deal with London's transport requirements.

Sir Anthony Royle: When the Minister is considering discussions with the GLC, with a view to removing responsibility for London Transport from it, will he consider the possibility of taking away the GLC's responsibility for main roads in the London area, in view of the GLC's failure to deal with the heavy lorry problem?

Mr. Eyre: That will be taken into account.

Mr. Spearing: Does the Minister agree that the unfair deal that his hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest (Sir J. Biggs-Davison) mentioned is the responsibility not of the GLC, but of the ill-considered and ill-judged intervention of one or two Bromley councillors? Since both British Rail and London Transport gain revenue support from the Government, does the Minister agree that representation and organisation of transport in London can be separate from those of national support?

Mr. Eyre: On reflection the hon. Gentleman will understand that the Lords' judgment was misrepresented in its effect by the GLC, which has now realised that it does not require it to break even without subsidy. The hon. Gentleman should understand that the GLC plans did enormous harm to businesses and to a great number of private individuals as a result of the excessive burden of rates that was placed on them.

Mr. John Page: When my hon. Friend is publishing and considering his future plans for public transport in London, will he also consider finding a new parent for London Transport which could be a new parent for the Hackney carriage industry and the private hire car industry?

Mr. Eyre: I appreciate the importance of my hon. Friend's points and they will be taken into consideration.

Railways (Investment)

Mr. Canavan: asked the Secretary of State for Transport if he will meet representatives of the railway workers' unions to discuss future investment in the railways and matters pertaining thereto.

Mr. David Howell: I have done so, at a meeting of the Rail Council, and I hope that a similar opportunity will arise in the future.

Mr. Canavan: Will the Secretary of State urge British Rail to give further consideration to ASLEF's claim, as the dispute has already cost about £100 million, which is more than what British Rail would hope to gain by the introduction of flexible rostering, even over the next decade? Does not today's decision to set up a special Cabinet Committee to preside over the possible closure of the complete railway network, and the inclusion in that Committee of the chairman of the Tory Party, prove conclusively that the Tory Party is trying politically to engineer and exploit the dispute to try to smash the trade union movement?

Mr. Howell: Those are fantasies in the hon. Gentleman's mind. If consideration is to be given, perhaps it should be consideration by those who have called this strike and, indeed, the strike action earlier in the year. Both caused much misery and suffering to the travelling public, to families going on holiday, grave difficulties for the commuter and have drained away millions of pounds that could have gone into investment in a modern railway.

Mr. Lyell: Before my right hon. Friend discusses with Mr. Buckton any further investment, will he make it clear to Mr. Buckton that his protestations this morning on radio, that he wants to negotiate with British Rail, would come from him rather better if he had not run through a full year of negotiations on flexible rostering and failed to implement anything that was discussed, including the report of Lord McCarthy, for which he asked?

Mr. Howell: Those points are self-evident and widely understood by those who want to see a modern railway and believe that some unwisdom has been shown by the ASLEF executive in charging into the strike and causing great damage to the railways' future.

M1

Mr. Greville Janner: asked the Secretary of State for Transport when he now anticipates that the current major roadworks on the M1 will be completed.

Mrs. Chalker: The M1 widening scheme between junctions 5 and 8 in Hertfordshire should be completed by the autumn of 1983. Several major maintenance contracts are also in progress on other sections of the motorway and should be completed during the summer and autumn of this year.

Mr. Janner: Does the Minister agree that the existence of major roadworks on the M1 not only creates delay, aggravation and expense, but potentially grave danger, especially when traffic is flowing in both directions on the same side of the motorway? Is she aware that I was involved in a serious accident only a few days ago near Leicester on the M1, when the lives of everyone in the car were undoubtely saved by seat belts and by the existence


of a crash barrier? Will she please do all she can to see that the occasions on which there is a contra-flow system are kept to a minimum?

Mrs. Chalker: I am sure that the whole House will join me in saying that we are relieved to see the hon. and learned Gentleman safe and sound and to learn that he was wearing his seat belt.
I am aware that the extensive repairs and reconstruction not only cause inconvenience, but, unless properly planned and well thought through, could also cause additional danger. It is for those reasons that we have extended the preparation lanes into the contra-flow system. We have changed the original system and I hope that motorists using the contra-flow system on the motorways will bear in mind the advised speed limits. They are being exceeded all too often by motorists who are trying to make haste. That causes accidents.

Mr. Robert Atkins: Is my hon. Friend aware that there is still considerable dissatisfaction among users of the motorways about the apparent coning of parts of surrounding areas that are involved in motorway reconstruction but where there does not appear to be any work going on? Will my hon. Friend look closely at the problem, as it delays many of her right hon. and hon. Friends as they travel to their constituencies?

Mrs. Chalker: I am concerned not only with my right hon. and hon. Friends and other hon. Members, but with the whole travelling public. We have asked our regional directors to ensure that coning on the motorways is carried out only when necessary. The fact that works may not appear to be going on is because the asphalt may be drying out. If we did not allow that necessary procedure to happen, there would be a waste of the investment in the resurfacing work.

Mr. Robert Hughes: Is the Minister satisfied with the liaison between her Department and the police authorities? Is she aware—I reported this to her office on Monday—that when I came down the M1 on Sunday, drivers were using the hard shoulder as though it were the outside, fast lane? Will she join me in deploring that dreadfully dangerous practice? Is she further aware that there was not a policeman in sight to take action? Will she see that that is remedied as soon as possible before there is a major accident and loss of life at those roadworks?

Mrs. Chalker: I was grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that information. I, too, had noted this. We have asked the police to take special note of those who are travelling on the hard shoulder. As I said in an earlier reply, we appeal to all motorists to observe the speed restrictions, which are put there not for fun but to save lives. I hope that motorists will take heed of that.

Commuter Transport (Financial Support)

Mr. Newens: asked the Secretary of State for Transport if he will provide direct financial support for all public transport undertakings which are heavily used by commuters.

Mr. Eyre: The Government already provide substantial financial assistance for local transport services through transport supplementary grant and for British Rail passenger services through the PSO grant.

Mr. Newens: Is the hon. Gentleman aware of the refusal of the Essex county council, on principle, to pay

any transport supplementary grant towards the support of the Epping-Ongar section of the Central Line, on the ground that British Railways' commuter services receive a 100 per cent. subsidy and do not receive a 30 per cent. contribution from local authorities? Is it fair that that section of the line should be burdened with premium fares that are driving travellers away and are continually forcing the question of closure to be raised when these problems have nothing to do with the travellers there? Will he instruct Essex county council that it should pay TSG straight over to London Transport—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is answering his question as well.

Mr. Eyre: The provision of local transport services on the Epping-Ongar line, which are provided by London Transport, requires the Essex county council to decide whether it will give support to those services. If it does so decide my right hon. Friend will assist the council by giving sympathetic consideration with regard to the TSG grant and to any proposal that it makes. It is essentially a local matter.

Mr. Stephen Ross: Will the Minister take this opportunity to confirm to the House that it is not part of his policy to turn railways into highways, an idea that is being promoted a great deal on television, but that it is part of his policy to give public transport the opportunity to provide the type of service that consumers are entitled to expect?

Mr. Eyre: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has made it clear that he does not expect any substantial closure to take place on the railways. The hon. Gentleman will understand that there are parts of the country, mainly the rural areas, where lines are now unused and where it is sensible to bring forward alternative proposals, such as cycle tracks.

Mr. Skinner: If we can get back to the question—[Interruption.] We have strayed a little. Will the Minister give a guarantee that when the Labour-controlled Derbyshire county council submits a scheme for free transport for all its elderly and disabled persons in the near future he will ensure that any shortfall that has to be paid to public and private undertakings for bus services will be made good by the Government?

Mr. Eyre: Sensible and responsible plans prepared by local authorities are always considered carefully and sympathetically by my right hon. Friend.

British Rail (Public Funding)

Mr. Kenneth Carlisle: asked the Secretary of State for Transport how much money he now expects to be paid to British Rail out of public funds in the current financial year.

Mr. Eyre: Grants from public funds are expected to total about £915 million.

Mr. Carlisle: Does my hon. Friend agree that his answer shows that the Government are putting huge sums of money into the railways? Is it not also true that the Government and the taxpayer are providing about £2 million each day to keep open uneconomic lines for social reasons? I can understand the need to subsidise the railways, but is my hon. Friend aware that the public


demand that the railways are run as efficiently as possible and that their money should not be used to maintain outdated working practices which other railway systems have long abandoned?

Mr. Eyre: I agree with all the points that my hon. Friend has made. In real terms, total support under the Government has been set at £186 million more than in the last full year of the previous Administration, but within the grant system there will be adjustments to take account of the strikes.

Mr. Brocklebank-Fowler: What is the cost to public funds of maintaining uneconomic and marginal lines such as the Kings Lynn—London railway link? Will the Minister confirm that the future of those lines will depend very much on the present industrial dispute coming rapidly to a close?

Mr. Eyre: The costs of the lines to which the hon. Gentleman has referred are borne partly within the PSO grant of £915 million, to which I have referred. It is realised on all sides that the continuation of the industrial strike will do enormous harm to the economy and future of the railways, which naturally gives rise to great concern about the pattern of the railway services.

Mr. Forman: I recognise that when this damaging dispute is over it will be necessary for my hon. Friend's Department to continue subsidising the social services by British Rail, but what ideas does my hon. Friend's Department have for ensuring improved performance and productivity from the whole British Rail industry?

Mr. Eyre: It is difficult to answer my hon. Friend fully when my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is about to make, after questions, a serious statement about the railways. The earmarking of part of the PSO for maintaining lines was one of the steps that were taken to ensure more efficient use of resources in the railway system.

Mr. Flannery: When will the Minister realise that the present trouble on the railways is due entirely to lack of proper investment by the Government? When will he realise that not only is that bringing the Government to an unnecessary collision with the railway men but is antagonising the entire trade union movement and causing an unnecessary struggle? Does he realise that railway men have had to put up with so-called flexible rostering for years, that to try to intensify flexible rostering by making more and more cuts meant that a stand had to be made at some time, and that that stand by the trade union movement is now here?

Mr. Eyre: The hon. Gentleman insistes upon ignoring the facts. I have given direct evidence that the PSO payable under the Government has been greater in real terms than under the previous Government. There has been more than £2 million of investment in the railways since 1976, one half of that since 1979. The hon. Gentleman must understand the significance of that, but the essential requirement is modern working practices to make good use of that investment.

Mr. Robert Hughes: I do not accept the Minister's figures for the amount of PSO grant and so on. Does he understand that one of the reasons why the Government were compelled to increase the amount of money was the economic plight facing the railways—a plight that was caused by the Government's actions?

Mr. Eyre: The hon. Gentleman will realise that the railway also failed to hold this business in certain respects—for example, in parcel traffic. Those adverse factors were taken into account in the unusually high grant that was given to the railways last year.

British Rail (Investment)

Mr. Parry: asked the Secretary of State for Transport when he next expects to meet the chairman of British Rail to discuss investment in the railways.

Sir Albert Costain: asked the Secretary of State for Transport when he next expects to meet the chairman of British Rail to discuss investment in the railways.

Mr. Anderson: asked the Secretary of State for Transport when he next proposes to meet the chairman of the British Railways Board to discuss investment levels.

Mr. Marlow: asked the Secretary of State for Transport when he next expects to meet the chairman of British Rail to discuss investment plans for the railways.

Mr. David Howell: I meet the chairman frequently to discuss various matters of mutual interest.

Mr. Parry: The Secretary of State will be aware of recent cuts in inter-city services. Does he accept that such cuts lead to unemployment, particularly in areas such as Liverpool? Does he agree that the Government adopt double standards on service to the general public? When there is an official strike by the rail unions the Government attack the trade unions, yet when there is industrial peace the Government support cuts in services and jobs?

Mr. Howell: On the railways it makes sense in management terms to adjust capacity and supply of rolling stock and services to demand. The running of many empty trains is a waste of resources that would otherwise go into modern equipment, resignalling and all the other things that we want to see on a modern railway. That is a sensible course to follow. The vast majority of railway men who want to see investment in a modern railway system and who do not want to strike are right to support good management practice.

Sir Albert Costain: My question could be altered by the Secretary of Slate's statement, Mr. Speaker. May I reserve my question until the statement has been made?

Mr. Speaker: I shall not say, but I hope that the hon. Gentleman will look in my direction.

Mr. Anderson: Does the Secretary of State accept that, despite current levels of investment and the increased PSO, there is a continual rundown of the railway system, which in part is the background to the current crisis? What priority do he and his Department give to the continued retention of the net work at its present level?

Mr. Howell: We have made it clear that we do not want substantial cuts in the network. I am sure, however, that the hon. Gentleman will recognise that the present resources of the railway system are being bled away. Even with the vastly greater social grant last year and this year than previously, even with the investment programmes, which were mentioned a few minutes ago—£1 billion since 1979 and another £1 billion spent on track renewal—and even with special parts of the current increased grant being reserved for track renewal, there is


bound to be enormous pressure on all parts of the system in future. Severe difficulties will have to be faced in maintaining the railway network that we had before this hideous and disastrous strike action.

Mr. Beaumont-Dark: Does my right hon. Friend agree that there is a need for more investment in the railway system, but only when the railway unions accept that we no longer live in 1919? If they would bring their practices up to date, it would be worth while investing more money in the future railway system.

Mr. Howell: I agree.

Mr. Spriggs: When the Secretary of State next meets the chairman of the British Railways Board, will he encourage him not to withdraw the new flexible rosters? I come from the railways and I have examined the new rosters. They are the best working rosters that I have seen in the last 40 years.

Mr. Howell: The hon. Gentleman speaks from great experience and with wisdom about the railway system. He echoes the views of Sidney Weighell, who has made it clear that the flexible rosters are a social and economic benefit to his members. I only wish that other senior and responsible people in the trade unions would bring home the same message that Sidney Weighell has given, who has had experience on the footplate and on other parts of the train.

Bus Lanes

Mr. Higgins: asked the Secretary of State for Transport if he will carry out a survey of bus lanes to establish their effect on traffic flows in urban areas.

Mr. Eyre: The effects of bus lanes on traffic flows have been widely studied and my Department has issued advice on design.

Mr. Higgins: Is my hon. Friend aware that many people believe that bus lanes slow down the flow of traffic not only for cars and other vehicles but for buses? As there will be new data because bus lanes have been withdrawn during the present rail crisis, will my hon. Friend make sure that statistics on the traffic flow of buses and other vehicles during this period are compared with those for periods when the bus lanes are in operation?

Mr. Eyre: I know that my right hon. Friend will understand that some traffic experts maintain that properly administered bus lanes can help to ease traffic congestion. I assure him with pleasure that his points will be carefully considered. The matter is being monitored.

Mr. Eggar: Will my hon. Friend take immediate action to remove the GLC's power to impose bus lanes in outer London boroughs against the wishes of residents associations and local councils?

Mr. Eyre: I assure my hon. Friend that some of the technical objections to some of the GLC's actions are well understood. The Secretary of State does not have the power to take the type of action for which my hon. Friend asks.

Mr. Allan Roberts: Does the Minister agree that bus lanes would be far more successful if more people used public transport and, in London, the Underground? Does he agree also that bus lanes are part of a package that

includes cheaper public transport fares? Does he agree, further that the GLC and other councils have the right to reduce fares as well as to introduce bus lanes?

Mr. Eyre: The main problem lies in the balance with which the plans are prepared and implemented. We are taking careful account of traffic engineering requirements. It is said that they can help, but ill-prepared plans do only harm.

Public Transport

Mr. Gwilym Roberts: asked the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on Her Majesty's Government's plans for support for public transport.

Mr. Eyre: Our plans provide for the continuation of substantial financial support for public transport.

Mr. Roberts: Does the Minister agree that the present problems of British Rail and the difficulties of public transport in Staffordshire, about which he has received several representations, including some from the county council, are a direct result of the low level of support that the Government have given to public transport as compared with the support that is given by many of our industrial competitors?

Mr. Eyre: The hon. Gentleman misrepresents the case in Staffordshire. I am told that on revenue support that is accepted for transport supplementary grant, Staffordshire does better than average for non-metropolitan counties, per head of population. Staffordshire receives £3·08 per head of population whereas the average for the English shire counties is £2·51 per head. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will bear that in mind.

Mr. Dorrell: I welcome the Government's continuing support for public transport. Does my hon. Friend agree that we can justify that support to our constituents only if it provides the service that they require, rather than subsidising outdated working practices that jeopardise the public transport system?

Mr. Eyre: I agree with my hon. Friend.

A564 Stoke-Derby Link

Mr. Knox: asked the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects the actual construction of the Blythe bridge to Uttoxeter section of the A564 Stoke to Derby link to start.

Mrs. Chalker: In four of five months' time. Tenders for the construction work are to be invited later this week.

Mr. Knox: Is my hon. Friend aware that my constituents in Draycott, Tean and Checkley will be delighted to hear that date confirmed? When is it expected that the work on that section of the road will be completed and the road will be open to traffic?

Mrs. Chalker: I agree that the residents of Draycott, Tean and Checkley will benefit a great deal. I am grateful to my hon. Friend. We hope that the work will be completed within two years and that it will start later this year. The more speedily it is done the happier we shall be.

Cycling

Mr. Dormand: asked the Secretary of State for Transport what priorities he is now giving to the various policies on cycling set out in his statement of 26 January.

Mrs. Chalker: Our top priority is to encourage the provision of better and safer routes and to make cycling safer on all roads through training, improved standards for new bicycles, and promoting wider awareness of cyclists' problems and needs.

Mr. Dormand: Is the Minister aware of the vast increase in cycling in the past 18 months? We welcome the fact that the hon. Lady is a member of the all-party cycling group. Does she agree that the Government should be treating the reasonable paper plans with more urgency? Does she agree that local authorities should be put under greater pressure to implement those plans? Is she aware that the British Medical Association report, which was published this week, suggests that there is an urgent need for cycle lanes? Will she do something about that urgently?

Mrs. Chalker: The BMA is not quite up to date on the progress that has been made. All of the initiatives in the January cycling policy statements are important and are being pursued. That is one of the reasons why we issued a circular to local authorities three months ago asking them to advance cycling schemes in their TPP bids by the end of this month. We promised favourable considerations for that in the 1983–84 TSG supplement. We hope that they will take the hint.

Mr. Forman: I warmly welcome the Government's support for cycling. Is my hon. Friend's Department prepared to examine one of the most unpleasant aspects of cycling in London—the emission of smoke and diesel fumes from motor vehicles? Does the Department have any plans to increase the control of emissions?

Mrs. Chalker: All HGVs and PSVs must undergo a smoke test in their annual inspections. Smoke and diesel fumes are extremely unpleasant. The maintainers of those vehicles must be conscious of it as it is a hazard not only to cyclists but to pedestrians and car users.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: The Minister gave an encouraging initial reply. Will she now give one example of each of the improvements that have been achieved?

Mrs. Chalker: I should be out of order if I were to give a long list. I shall, however, give the hon. Gentleman one good example. It is the recent opening of the Albert Gate crossing on the GLC's ambassador route, to which my Department is making a contribution of £53,000. Other schemes are in progress. As I said to the hon. Member for Easington (Mr. Dormand), I shall do what I can to ensure that they are considered favourably.

Ports (Northern Region)

Mr. Campbell-Savours: asked the Secretary of State for Transport how many ports he owns, or owns shares in, in the Northern region.

Mr. Eyre: None, Sir. Two ports in Cumbria, Barrow and Silloth, are owned by the British Transport Docks Board, a nationalised industry for which my right hon. Friend is responsible.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: Is the Minister aware that Maryport harbour in my constituency, which is publicly owned and has lain fallow for 30 years, could be a good object of capital investment as it is in a community that is desperate for work? Will he consider such investment?

Mr. Eyre: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the ownership of that trust port is vested in the harbour commissioners as the statutory harbour authority and owners. I understand that the Maryport Steamship Company intends to provide a permanent exhibition of historic vessels in that harbour and that a grant is being obtained from the tourist board. I hope that that proposal will be helpful.

Mr. Colvin: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I remind the hon. Gentleman that the question relates to ports in the Northern region and that a supplementary question must be on that subject.

Mr. Colvin: Will my hon. Friend bring the House up to date with plans for the disposal of the British Transport Docks Board? If he has no plans, are discussions in train to formulate some?

Mr. Eyre: The British Transport Docks Board is continuing with its responsibilities to prepare for privatisation.

Railways (Investment)

Mr. Les Huckfield: asked the Secretary of State for Transport when he next expects to discuss major investment projects, for which his approval is necessary, with the chairman of the British Railways Board.

Mr. David Howell: I refer the hon. Member to the reply that I gave earlier today to my hon. Friends the Members for Folkestone and Hythe (Sir. A. Costain) and Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) and the hon. Members for Liverpool, Scotland Exchange (Mr. Parry) and Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson).

Mr. Huckfield: Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that, irrespective of any current dispute, he will have to take certain basic investment decisions next year on proposals already submitted to him by the chairman of the British Railways Board? Will he confirm that those decisions are his responsibility and that he is therefore responsible for the future size of the railway network?

Mr. Howell: I certainly confirm that important investment decisions have to be made both now and in the future, decisions that are essential for a modern and efficient railway. As the Government have always made clear, however—this is widely supported both outside and within the industry—progress on investment must go hand in hand with progress on working practices to operate it. It is no use having new trains standing by if the work practices to operate them are not brought forward. I think that the hon. Gentle man will accept that the two must go together.

Oral Answers to Questions — CIVIL SERVICE

Job Statistics

Mr. Norman Hogg: asked the Minister for the Civil Service what the reduction in Civil Service jobs in Scotland has been since May 1979.

The Minister of State, Treasury (Mr. Barney Hayhoe): Information is not available about the reduction in Civil Service jobs since May 1979, but between January 1979 and January 1982 the number of civil servants in Scotland fell by 3,300.

Mr. Hogg: Is the Minister aware that by reducing the number of civil servants he is contributing to the economic decline of Scotland? Is he aware that 341,232 people are already unemployed there, that unemployment in Strathclyde is running at 17·7 per cent. and that cuts in the Civil Service simply make matters worse?

Mr. Hayhoe: It is important that our Civil Service should be efficient, and it is right that reductions are being made. In percentage terms, however, the reductions in Scotland are smaller than those in many other regions of the country.

Mr. Home Robertson: Will the Minister give an undertaking that proper consultations will take place with all interested parties before any Civil Service jobs in Scotland are lost as a result of jobcentre closures that might follow Sir Derek Rayner's latest report? Incidentally, is Sir Derek Rayner a civil servant? If he is, will the Minister please sack him?

Mr. Hayhoe: Certainly not. Sir Derek Rayner is making very valuable contributions to the overall efficiency of Government. I think that the hon. Gentleman should put his question about jobcentres to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment.

Mr. Donald Stewart: How do the Minister's figures for job reductions in Scotland accord with the Government's promise to divert Civil Service jobs to Scotland and the regions?

Mr. Hayhoe: The dispersal of more than 2,000 jobs to Scotland is going ahead and the dispersal to East Kilbride has been completed ahead of time, but Scotland cannot be exempted and insulated from the overall reduction of jobs in the Civil Service.

Promotion Systems

Mr. Cryer: asked the Minister for the Civil Service whether official discussions she proposes to hold with trade unions in the Civil Service will examine promotion systems.

Mr. Hayhoe: There has been no request from the trade unions for central discussions on promotion. My right hon. and noble Friend the Lord Privy Seal is always ready to discuss such questions if the trade unions so wish.

Mr. Cryer: Is the Minister aware that there is great resentment among the vast majority of civil servants who carry out the humdrum tasks in the operation of the Government machine at being held down to a paltry wage increase while senior civil servants in Whitehall not only receive an 18 per cent. increase but have their own promotion system whereby they promote themselves into the boardrooms of the major corporations on leaving the Civil Service? Is he aware that many people believe that this amounts to a form of corruption and that the sooner it stops the better, so that people can then see that our Civil Service is completely impartial?

Mr. Hayhoe: I believe that our Civil Service is impartial and I pay tribute to it once again. Its integrity compares exceptionally well with any other civil service in the world. I do not believe that the hon. Gentleman can speak on behalf of the Civil Service. Certainly the trade unions do not reflect the views that he expresses.

Dr. Hampson: Is my hon. Friend satisfied that management ability is given sufficient weight in promotions within the Civil Service.

Mr. Hayhoe: The whole impetus in recent months has been that management experience and ability should play a considerable part in determining promotion for senior civil servants.

Mr. Alan Williams: In the context of promotion systems and the good image and good management of the Civil Service, will the Minister confirm that, recently, instead of an internal promotion being made to the post of head of the Property Services Agency, the Government appointed a person lacking the Civil Service Commission certificate of qualification, although, according to the Government, the appointment of persons without that qualification should be extremely rare? Will he further confirm that instead of directly employing that person, the Government are paying a fee to a company set up by that person just before his appointment in which he and his wife are the only shareholders and which has no trading record? Has not the Treasury shown a serious lack of judgment in involving itself and its employee in what could be construed—wrongly, I hope—as an exercise in tax avoidance?

Mr. Hayhoe: I can confirm some of the details given by the right hon. Gentleman, as I believe that I gave them to him in a letter or my right hon. and noble Friend the Lord Privy Seal made them available. I do not believe that tax avoidance arises in the way that the right hon. Gentleman suggests. The individual concerned was appointed because my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment and others felt that he was the best man for the job.

Mr. Wrigglesworth: Can the Minister tell us what action the Government propose to take on the recommendations of the Megaw inquiry?

Mr. Hayhoe: No, I cannot, because the valuable report produced by that inquiry is now under consideration. As this is the first occasion on which it has been mentioned, however, I thank Sir John Megaw and all his colleagues for the speedy way in which they carried out their task and met the deadline given to them.

Unions (Discussions)

Mr. Parry: asked the Minister for the Civil Service what matters she expects to discuss at her next meeting with the Civil Service unions.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: asked the Minister for the Civil Service what matters she intends to discuss on the next occasion she meets with representatives of the Civil Service unions.

Mr. Hayhoe: Plans for my next meeting with Civil Service unions have not yet been made.

Mr. Parry: When the Minister meets the Civil Service unions, will he discuss with them the representations that he has received, particularly from the Civil and Public Services Association and others, about the Rayner report on employment? Does he accept that the recommendations to cut jobcentres in areas such as Liverpool and Merseyside, where unemployment is running at 30 or 40 per cent., is nothing short of criminal and should be rejected?

Mr. Hayhoe: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment is responsible for these matters. So far as I am aware, the report would not bear the interpretation that the hon. Gentleman seeks to place on it.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: When the Minister next meets the Civil Service unions, will he discuss the location of the Government Laboratory and direct their attention to the annual report, which shows that accommodation at Cornwall House is insufficient and, indeed, offends the terms of the health and safety legislation? Will he point out to them that there is still prime land in West Cumbria on which a Government laboratory could be built, as that is what we understand they want?

Mr. Hayhoe: I have not seen such representations from the Civil Service unions, but if they are made to me I shall of course consider them.

Mr. Woolmer: I thank the Minister for confirming to me in writing that in the Civil Service the job release scheme is running into considerable difficulties and is thus frustrating the aim of taking people off the dole queue in return for others retiring early. What steps will he take to ensure that the scheme will work effectively, particularly in the Inland Revenue service?

Mr. Hayhoe: I know that there have been some changes in the rules for the scheme for the Civil Service. Again, the changes have been made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment. I am certainly prepared to consider representations about difficulties in the Inland Revenue.

Mr. Alan Williams: When the Minister meets the Civil Service unions, will he inform them of the timetable that he envisages for negotiations on the Megaw recommendations? Does he hope and expect that the new system will be operating by next April? If the Megaw proposals are accepted by the trade unions, does he expect the new system to begin with one of the major four-yearly comparison reviews to provide base figures for the future? If the negotiations and calculations are not completed by next April, will arbitration be assured for the 1983 pay round?

Mr. Hayhoe: As I said, the Government asked the Megaw committee to report this summer. The committee met that timetable and I hope that its recommendations can be considered in good time for the 1983 settlement. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has made it clear that the Government intend to begin discussions with the unions

as soon as both sides are ready, but it is too soon now to judge how much progress may be made towards reaching a new agreement that can be effective for the 1983 negotiations.

Later—

Mr. Spriggs: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I believe that the Minister made an error when referring to the Rayner report. My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Scotland Exchange (Mr. Parry) raised a question about jobcentres on Merseyside. The Minister implied that the Rayner report did not deal with jobcentres, but it did, and St. Helens—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The House will be grateful for that correction, if it is a correction. I do not know.

Mr. Hayhoe: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. The hon. Member for Liverpool, Scotland Exchange (Mr. Parry) commented on the detail of the report. I fully accept that the committee referred to jobcentres, and that is why I said that it was a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment.

Management Information Systems

Mr. Eggar: asked the Minister for Civil Service what progress is being made with the production of new management information systems throughout Departments.

Mr. Hayhoe: Each major Department has been asked to prepare a specific programme to improve its financial management. Departments are considering their requirements for management information systems in that context.

Mr. Eggar: My hon. Friend gives very encouraging news. Will he say by what date such schemes must be given to the Treasury? Will he confirm that in future more power will be given to the centre, particularly the Management and Personnel Office and the Treasury, to impose systems on other Departments?

Mr. Hayhoe: The Departments have been asked to submit to the Treasury and to the Management and Personnel Office early next year their plans for improving their financial management. Further details will be included in the Government's response to the helpful and constructive report from the Treasury and Civil Service Select Committee.

British Rail (Dispute)

The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. David Howell): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a statement about the current industrial action on the railways.
In the face of the continuing strike imposed by the executive of ASLEF against the new work rosters firmly recommended by Lord McCarthy's tribunal, the British Railways Board has within the last two hours announced that it will be forced to close the railway system down from next Wednesday unless there is a substantial return to work by the drivers.
All those on strike on the previous day will be dismissed. At the same time, they will be offered immediate re-employment on the same terms, provided only that they agree to work to the new rosters.
The decisions to which the British Railways Board has been driven are clearly very grave. The strike which has caused them is a pointless one that should never have been called and should and could easily be lifted even now by the ASLEF executive.
The McCarthy railway tribunal has left no doubt that flexible rostering should now be adopted by ASLEF, with no fewer than 13 safeguards, as it has been by the rest of those working on the railways to their clear benefit. The British Railways Board has all along been willing to discuss details of how the new rosters should be brought in and ways of making the change as easy as possible for the engine drivers. Its proposals to this end were met with the blunt response by the ASLEF executive of an all-out strike call, although having pulled this trigger the ASLEF executive then suggested further talks, but still with no clear commitment whatsoever to any change in principle.
The board has informed me that its further offer of constructive ways on which flexible rostering could be applied, once ASLEF has lifted its strike and accepted the principle, has again been rejected by the ASLEF executive in the last 24 hours.
The path ahead for the railways of this country is now very dark. Vast resources are being bled away. Thousands of jobs could disappear for good. Travellers and holiday makers are being caused much bitter misery and suffering.
Those who called this unnecessary strike, as well as those who have given comfort and succour to the strike, carry an immense and direct responsibility for all this damage and all this suffering.
It remains in the hands of the ASLEF executive to call a halt to the destruction; and it is the duty of all those who believe the public should be protected and the railways and those who work in them saved from disaster to urge the executive of ASLEF to desist from its futile course.

Mr. Albert Booth: Will the Secretary of State tell the House why his statement makes no reference whatever to the ACAS initiative to resolve the dispute which has been running since last weekend? Will he belatedly join me in welcoming the intiative taken by Pat Lowry and his staff in an attempt to avert a continuation of the dispute and the shutting down of the railways that the Secretary of State has just announced? Will the Secretary of State also join me in expressing disappointment that the initiative has not succeeded? Will he tell the House whether he has studied the ASLEF

proposals to ACAS and say whether there is anything in those proposals that he thinks justifies their rejection by British Rail?
Why has there been no Government initiative to date in an attempt to resolve this dispute? Is the Secretary of State aware that there are those who have spared no effort in the last few days in an attempt to bring about a resolution of the dispute and that they look to him with increasing despair for some assistance in such efforts?
Does the Secretary of State appreciate that the threat of dismissing strikers will only serve to make the settlement more difficult and heighten hostility? What is needed is an attempt to de-escalate the dispute and reduce hostility.
Finally, will the Secretary of State recognise that the present railway crisis owes much to the policy of the Government in its making and that his role in the matter is an abrogation of his responsibility to try to get the railways running again?

Mr. Howell: Certainly I regret that the last-minute effort of the Arbitration, Conciliation and Advisory Service, as the right hon. Gentleman reminded the House, has not succeeded.
I have studied the proposals of the British Railways Board and ASLEF. There was no sign in the ASLEF proposals of a change of heart, or of a firm commitment to flexible rosters. If there had been a sign that it would lift the strike and accept the introduction of flexible rosters, I believe that the British Rail Board, and the Government, would have been extremely anxious to accept, and would have welcomed the consequent discussions that could have lead peaceably to the introduction of flexible rosters.
However, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, that is not the position that ASLEF has taken. If there had been a genuine change of heart, ASLEF would have lifted the strike and made a firm commitment to flexible rosters. It would have taken up that position before calling the strike on the railway system. It did none of those things, and the difficulty now is that under the shadow of the strike the ASLEf offer would postpone and delay again an issue that has been fudged and delayed for a long time. That would not be in the interests of the railway, the nation, or the vast majority of workers on the railways who have adopted the new practices and who want to get on with building a modern railway.
The right hon. Gentleman asked about an initiative. I believe that a good initiative by the right hon. Gentleman and his right hon. Friend the Leader of the Labour Party would be for them to go back on their bizarre statement at the weekend and the announcement at Durham racecourse—which apparently was not given because the right hon. Gentleman ran out of time—which gave comfort and support to ASLEF and instead to listen to the wise words of Mr. Sidney Weighell, who urged the Leader of the Opposition to behave like a leader. When I hear the right hon. Gentleman apportioning blame for the railway crisis, I feel that we should all refer to the words of Mr. Sidney Weighell:
We have grave doubts about you and Albert.

Mr. Terence Higgins: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the British Railways Board is absolutely right to take its decision, given that members of ASLEF and the Left-wing executive of Mr. Buckton have exploited to the full for more than a year the antiquated negotiating procedures in the railway industry? In those


circumstances, British Rail was right to seek to impose flexible rostering. Will my right hon. Friend also note the contrast between the view expressed by the Leader of the Opposition and the right hon. Member for Barrow-in-Furness (Mr. Booth) and that expressed by Labour Back-Benchers—for example, the hon. Member for St. Helens (Mr. Spriggs)—who realise that flexible rostering is essential if the railways are to survive?

Mr. Howell: My right hon. Friend is correct. I recognise that many people, regardless of party—I suspect on the Back Benches on both sides of the House—look with great sadness on the actions that have now been forced on those managing the rail system and on the consequences to the public by the calling of this strike. As I said in my statement, I believe that even now it is right that all who have influence on ASLEF and other trade unions should seek to exercise that influence to bring home the disastrous course upon which ASLEF is set. It will not help if further comfort and succour is given to the ASLEF executive, as appeared to be the case over the weekend, although I hope that that has now changed.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: order. I propose to call first those hon. Members who deferred their supplementary questions at Question Time so that they could be called on the statement.

Mr. Bob Cryer: Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that four days before the strike began ASLEF offered to withhold the strike and was prepared to recall the ASLEF conference to embark on two experiments on flexible rostering? Is he aware that the British Railways Board rejected that and refused to withdraw its imposition of flexible rostering and that Parker and the board are now embarked on an unholy conspiracy with the Tory Government to smash ASLEF? Is not that confirmed by the fact that, even on its own figures, the British Railways Board will save only £l½ million in a full year as a result of flexible rostering, whereas the strike is costing £9 million a day?

Mr. Howell: The hon. Gentleman's figures are wholly wrong. In fact, flexible rosters are the direct key to £35 million of benefits a year and are the gateway to the working of a modern and efficient railway. Unless movement on flexible rosters is achieved, it in effect puts a bar on all advance into the modern technology of an efficient railway system.
I understand that at no time did ASLEF give any evidence that it was ready to commit itself to the introduction of flexible rosters as set out in National Railways Staff Tribunal decision No. 77. Indeed, when British Rail made proposals by which the rosters could be introduced sensitively, carefully and in line with all the safeguards, the response after 24 hours or more was a blunt refusal and the calling of the strike. As I said in my statement, it appears that after that ASLEF had some second thoughts and suggested some talks about talks that might further raise the issue. Had ASLEF been serious, and had there been a genuine change of heart—which I and the British Railways Board would like to see—it would have lifted the strike and made a firm commitment to the introduction of flexible rosters. It could then talk with the British Railways Board about how they should be introduced.

Mr. Mark Lennox-Boyd: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, unless this strike ended quickly, a closure of the railway system was always inevitable? Does he further agree that ASLEF's so-called offer to end the strike is nonsense because it is dependent, not upon the ASLEF leaders, but upon reference to a delegate conference of the ASLEF members who over the last year have demonstrated that they are incapable of reaching agreement on measures that are necessary to modernise the railway system?

Mr. Howell: I believe that to be the position. As many people warned, there were bund to be grave difficulties for the railway system if the ASLEF executive persisted in its strike call. As I have said many times, I believe the strike to be unnecessary. It could now easily be lifted and the ASLEF executive could enter into talks about the introducition of flexible rosters. The opportunity for it to do so still exists. That would save the threat to many of its fellow railway workers and the future of the system.

Mr. Sydney Bidwell: Why cannot the right hon. Gentleman step aside from his lengthy brief and apply his mind to the country's transport needs? The train men are proud craft workers, and his task is to get them and the British Railways Board around the table as quickly as he possibly can. He should understand that the Transport and General Workers Union, with its giant membership, will not stand idly by while he tries to destroy ASLEF.

Mr. Howell: Neither the hon. Gentleman nor many of his hon. Friends needs any brief to be reminded that the National Union of Railwaymen has accepted the principle of flexible rosters; that following an inquiry, a promise and an undertaking that they would be introduced, the railway tribunal recommended that ASLEF should also accept flexible rosters; and that they can be introduced in ways that will be compatible with the operation of sensible hours for engine drivers. All that can be done. All it requires is for the ASLEF executive to lift its strike action and enter into the discussions on introduction. I suggest that the hon. Gentleman should use his influence, which is considerable in the trade union movement, to ensure that common sense prevails with the ASLEF executive before great damage is done to people in many other unions as well.

Sir Albert Contain: Does my right hon. Friend see any similarity between this small group of persons who are stopping the future development of the British Rail system and the landowners who, 100 years ago, prevented the development of the railways because they thought that it would upset their own selfish ends? At that time public opinion took over and convinced them that they were wrong. What steps can my right hon. Friend take to ensure that public opinion takes over in this instance?

Mr. Howell: It is regrettable that the decision of the executive of this union—and it was only the executive—to call the strike appears to have been taken without any regard to public or union opinion. I share the views of those who counsel against trade unions charging into industrial action irresponsibly without any regard to the understanding of public opinion or the real issues at stake.

Mr. Leslie Spriggs: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that many hon. Members who are now


opposed to the flexible rosters do not know the first thing about them? As a railway man of many years standing, I have examined the new flexible rosters, and I believe that they will be of real service to every railway man in the country.

Mr. Howell: I very much hope that the hon. Gentleman's practical wisdom, based on hard and real experience, will be listened to closely by his more theoretical colleagues around him who seem all too eager to plunge the industry into grave dangers for no good reason at all.

Mr. John Major: Does my right hon. Friend share my fear that if the rail network closes for a reasonable period many lines may never reopen? Will he ask the British Railways Board to confirm that? Will he also ask it to advise railmen of that fact? Will he further ask it to publish a list of the likely casualties so that both the public and the railway men can be in no doubt about the likely result of ASLEF's unreasonable action?

Mr. Howell: No one in the industry, in the Government or in the unions has disguised the fact that every day the strike proceeds the goal of a comprehensive, modern and efficient railway system recedes. That is a very great danger, and there can be no doubt that in reviewing the future of the railway system, as the Serpell committee is now doing, the impact of the present dispute is bound to lead to a revision of views about the kind of railway system that can be run.

Mr. Stephen Ross: Is the Secretary of State aware that the Liberal Party thinks that his attitude, and that of his Government, to public transport, and the railways in particular, needs to be greatly enlightened? It would help enormously if investment could be promised now for genuine productivity. [HON MEMBERS: "It has."] It has not been promised by the Secretary of State. Nevertheless, the Liberal Party supports the British Railways Board in the announcement that it has unfortunately had to make today. Like the Secretary of State, we urge on the members of ASLEF a return to work without further delay and the calling-off of this pointless strike.

Mr. Howell: If I heard aright, the hon. Gentleman in the end came down in support of the British Railways Board and its determination to obtain higher productivity and a modern railway system. That is what it is after, and that is what everyone interested in the future of the railways should be after. That is why he, his colleagues, and many hon. Members in the Labour Party as well should support the British Railways Board and try to bring home to ASLEF the futility of the course on which it is set.

Mr. Gordon A. T. Bagier: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that there are many hon. Members who have been doing their utmost to find a solution to the problem? Does he understand that, although there is a genuine difference of opinion between the NUR and ASLEF as to the approach to flexible rostering, they have nevertheless tried to find a peaceful solution to the confrontation? When will the right hon. Gentleman and his right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State allegedly responsible for employment, do something about getting people round the table to talk about this problem?

Does he not appreciate that many people believe that the Secretaries of State have abdicated their responsibility, and that hurling abuse at my right hon. Friend the Member for Barrow-in-Furness (Mr. Booth) and my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition does nothing but exacerbate the problem?
Does the right hon. Gentleman further agree that, although there may be a case for turning off the money tap and closing the railways from next Wednesday, there is no excuse for putting a sacking notice on the drivers, which will only exacerbate the position and unite the trade union movement behind ASLEF?

Mr. Howell: The hon. Gentleman, who is experienced in the railways, will know that time and again there have been attempts to bring the ASLEF executive round the table to accept the principle of flexible rostering and to discuss how to introduce it.

Mr. Ted Graham: Not by the Secretary of State.

Mr. Howell: He knows, too, that the response of ASLEF was not to agree to the talks but to call a strike. I am sure that he will accept that the need is for ASLEF to lift the strike and to agree to the discussions about the introduction of flexible rostering, and then there will be progress on the railways. That is the aim, which I am sure the hon. Gentleman will share.

Sir Raymond Gower: Has my right hon. Friend noted the description by the general secretary of the NUR that this has been a selfish and sectional action by ASLEF? Is it not true that the action taken by ASLEF will inflict much suffering on members of the NUR and the TSSA.

Mr. Howell: My hon. Friend is right. The strike is not in the interests of railway men and does not even represent the interests of the vast majority of railway men. The action is wholly against their interests and may greatly damage the future for all of them.

Mr. Les Huckfield: Cannot the right hon. Gentleman accept that it is factually correct that it was the British Railways Board which refused to negotiate when the ASLEF executive offered two weeks ago precisely what the board had been seeking? It was the board who refused to negotiate. Does he accept that this week the local management of British Railways Board has been using threats, bullying and intimidation against members of ASLEF? Such tactics only confirm what many of us believe—that both he and the board have been seeking throughout a deliberate confrontation with the union. Does he accept that he as much as anyone else is responsible for the dispute, and should do something about resolving it?

Mr. Howell: The hon. Gentleman talks about correct facts, but staring him in the face is the fact that he cannot escape, and which no rewriting of history can change. The board has bent over backwards to provide ways by which flexible rosters, as recommended by the Lord McCarthy tribunal, can be introduced, but the blunt response of the ASLEF executive, on the evening of 29 June, was to call the strike. The facts cannot be put aside, rewritten or changed by the hon. Gentleman.
If the hon. Gentleman believes that there is now a change of heart by ASLEF, that will be welcome to the British Railways Board. In that case, let him recommend to ASLEF that it lifts the strike, agrees to the introduction,


in principle and in practice, of flexible rosters and gets down to discussing how it can be done for the benefit of everyone, including ASLEF members.

Mr. Robert Adley: Does my right hon. Friend agree that en route from Nuneaton to Wigan the hon. Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Huckfield) would be well advised to stop off at St. Helens, where the views of the hon. Member for St. Helens (Mr. Spriggs) represent those of many ASLEF men that I know—that the new flexible rosters will bring them benefits, not disadvantages?
Will my right hon. Friend take the opportunity to point out to the Opposition and to the country that we are dealing not with a private sector employer in the nineteenth century trying to grind the faces of the poor, but with a management doing its damnest in difficult circumstances to run a major nationalised industry as best it can for the benefit of the customer and the nation? Does he agree—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I said that I would call four more hon. Gentlemen from either side of the House. I shall be able to call only two if we have long questions.

Mr. Howell: I agree that we are dealing with the management of a major nationalised industry aiming for good productivity and good services as the basis for good investment, modern equipment and a good railway for the future. That is what the British Railways Board is trying to achieve, and it should be supported. All this talk about union smashing, or any of the other fanciful suggestions, is a distraction from the basic aim that should be backed by all those who have the railways' interests truly at heart.

Mr. Tom Bradley: Is the Secretary of State aware that his statement condemning this disastrous strike is very much in line with what the leaders of the two other rail unions—the TSSA and the NUR—are saying? With that advantage behind him, why does the right hon. Gentleman still continue to shrug his shoulders? It is not inconceivable that the Government have responsibility in this matter and, therefore, why will the Secretary of State not take an initiative, as his predecessors have done on many post-war occasions, in bringing the parties together round the table to negotiate and resolve this unsatisfactory position? What does he intend to do?

Mr. Howell: I am sure that the hon. Member will be the first to accept that as long as there is the fact of the strike hanging over the issue—which is what has happened—it is difficult for anyone to see how sensible discussions can take place about the introduction of flexible rosters. It would be highly desirable, and the board and the Government would welcome it, if the ASLEF executive now took steps to accept the Lord McCarthy tribunal recommendation, lift the strike, and enter into discussions on how to introduce flexible rosters. That must be the first step. It is a sensible step and one that all the other unions, anybody interested in the railway industry and the general public wish to see taken. That is where the change of heart is required so that the railways' future can be secured.

Mr. Nigel Forman: Is my right hon. Friend aware that thousands of regular commuters in my constituency are fed up to the back teeth with Mr. Bucicion and the ASLEF executive, and the one thing that they would not understand would be the Government or the

board, which are involved directly or indirectly in the dispute, backing down on the sensible way forward that has been suggested?

Mr. Howell: I am sure that my hon. Friend is right. That view is shared by the vast majority of those concerned—the travelling public, the other railway unions and the staff and management of the industry. It is also shared by the Government. It seems that everyone except the ASLEF executive shares that view. Members of the executive should quickly change their stance, as they could, to save themselves and many others in the industry grave difficulties in the future.

Mr. Stanley Cohen: As one of the four assessors on the McCarthy tribunal, I can make one or two points. The first question is whether the right hon. Gentleman believes that consultation is preferable to confrontation. The second question is whether the Government have faced up to their responsibilities or passed them on to the board. Sir Peter Parker and the BRB will find themselves in an extremely difficult position.
When will the Government intervene to try to resolve what is obviously a difficult problem? The majority of railway employees do not want to be involved in a dispute, but the Government must accept their responsibility and take action.

Mr. Howell: Of course, consultation is always better than confrontation. When the hon. Gentleman says that it is a very difficult problem, he is right as far as ASLEF is concerned. However, the NUR did not find flexible rosters a difficult problem. It was able to undertake to introduce them and its members received a pay increase for that change in working practices and for others which, unfortunately, they have not been able to deliver. The NUR was able to go forward on the basis of higher pay and better social conditions for the guards involved. There was no difficulty for the NUR, and it is, therefore, necessary to get over to ASLEF—I believe that it is getting across to many ASLEF members—the fact that there is no real difficulty in that union also accepting flexible rosters. The sooner that message gets over, the sooner we shall be able to avoid the grave damage that is taking place.

Mr. Anthony Beaumont-Dark: Does my right hon. Friend agree that one of the problems that we face in the dispute is that many Labour Members believe that beer and sandwiches at No. 10 will solve every problem? Is not the damaging intervention by the Leader of the Opposition part of the syndrome that if we meet together as Government and unions the give has to come in the middle? Let us all realise that the give has come already. 1919 is dead. Will my right hon. Friend agree that if the unions agree to realistic rostering they will have a good living, a good future and a high employment level? We all want that, but giving in, as the Leader of the Opposition wants to do, will ruin the railways and the whole country.

Mr. Howell: I agree with my hon. Friend. Frankly, I do not know what the Leader of the Opposition wants to do at this stage. I hope that, no matter what position the right hon. Gentleman and the right hon. Member for Barrow-in-Furness (Mr. Booth) adopted at the weekend, they will use their influence and authority to do what I understood the whole trade union movement was trying to do earlier in the year, which is to get the ASLEF executive


to agree to the implementation of the McCarthy tribunal's recommendation that flexible rosters should be introduced.

Mr. David Stoddart: Does not the right hon. Gentleman realise that his lack of commitment to the railways for some time, his threats and the use of the mailed fist instead of negotiation have led to the lack of morale and industrial unrest that we have witnessed on the railways recently? Will he accept that the railways are the responsibility of him and of Parliament and not only of British Rail? It is no good the right hon. Gentleman believing that he can wash his hands of the situation, as if he were a latter-day Pontius Pilate. He will have to intervene eventually, particularly if the capital comes to a standstill. Why does he not intervene now?

Mr. Howell: When one considers the extra hundreds of millions of pounds that have gone into British Rail in recent times—the vast increase in the social grants, the investment programmes and many other resources—it is difficult to recognise the hon. Gentleman's description of recent events as accurate. I urge that, instead of using that sort of description, which is a distortion of the facts, the hon. Gentleman should try to bring it home to the industry and its workers, and particularly to the ASLEF executive, that the Government have supported British Rail with substantial investment. Even now, new equipment that ought to be in operation is not running because the appropriate work practices have not been agreed. There is no question of a lack of synchronisation on that side.
The essential precondition for a successful future for the industry is that the ASLEF executive accepts what the vast majority of workers in the industry have already accepted, which is that the practice of more flexible rosters is the right one for our industry, as it is for almost every other railway industry in Europe that has made progress.

Mr. John Peyton: Is my right hon. Friend aware that accusations that he has been excessively tough and has resorted to the mailed fist are about as wide of the mark as are the suggestions that the British Railways Board is packed full of tough Tory politicians and that Lord McCarthy, who has not been mentioned often in these exchanges, has Conservative leanings?

Mr. Howell: I am grateful for what I think is my right hon. Friend's recognition of reason, balance and a fair-minded attitude when he sees them. It is not for me to comment on the other directions in which he cast his views, but I believe that the board has gone a long way to try to introduce the rosters recommended by the McCarthy tribunal sensitively and carefully and to recognise all the problems raised by the fears expressed by engine drivers and, on their behalf, by the ASLEF executive. A great deal of reason has been shown and the response has been this cruel strike. If we are to see a change of heart, an intervention or a movement to change the situation, that is where the change should begin.

Mr. Martin Flannery: Does not the right hon. Gentleman realise that his statement will intensify and deepen the problem? Does he not also realise that the struggle is long past flexible rostering and has become a major struggle between the entire trade union movement and this dictatorial Conservative Government?
Will not the right hon. Gentleman accept that railway men have had flexible rostering for many years and that the Government are trying to impose on them inflexible rosters which they will not accept and which they say will cause serious difficulties for them in their daily lives? When will he make a proper intervention and call all the parties round a table to get them to examine the offer made by ASLEF, which has proposed that the two systems should run in parallel before a decision is taken on which is better? Why did the right hon. Gentleman refuse to accept that offer?

Mr. Howell: The hon. Gentleman may wish to see this as a struggle by the entire trade union movement, but if he consults many of his colleagues he will find that it is not that at all. If there are struggles and arguments, they are between members of the labour movement about common sense practices that should have been adopted in our railway system long ago and have now been adopted by four-fifths of railway workers. That is what the hon. Gentleman will find if he listens and talks to those who are trying to ensure that the railways have a better future.
The only struggle for the board is its attempt to get new productivity methods introduced. That is a sensible way forward. It is recognised as such by the majority of trade union leaders and objected to only by the ASLEF executive.
The dispute is about higher productivity, better wages and better conditions on the railways, not about smashing the unions or the struggles of organised labour against capitalism. That is fanciful talk that has nothing to do with the present problem.

Mr. Robert Hughes: Will the Secretary of State accept that he is under a genuine misapprehension that the strike can be called off only by the ASLEF conference? Has he studied the proposals that were discussed late last night, when it was clear that there was some movement on both sides and that the ASLEF executive was prepared to call off the strike today? As he is so seriously mistaken, does not that expose his difficulty in not having met the parties personally to discuss the issues? Instead he has relied on second or third-hand reports, however genuine they may be.
Does the right hon. Gentleman understand that many hon. Members—not only among the Opposition—have tried seriously to sustain the negotiations for as long as possible to enable a return to work on the railways and an end to the damage that will be done to the British economy? Surely he must understand that he cannot stand aside and allow the railways to be closed for a prolonged period without accepting his share of the responsibility, which will be a major share if he does not at least attempt to live up to the stature of the office that he holds.

Mr. Howell: There is no misapprehension. The board and the Government have been anxious for the ASLEF executive to change its attitude, call off the strike and accept the principle of flexible rostering as outlined in the National Railway Staff Tribunal's decision No. 77. That has been recommended by the tribunal and by successive inquiries and that is what was promised by the general secretary of ASLEF last August in return for higher wages. They were duly taken, although the promise was not delivered.
There is no misapprehension among the vast majority of railway workers. There is a realisation that the ASLEF


executive has called the strike and refused to accept the flexible rostering recommended by the tribunal. The executive is not prepared to move from that position. The vast majority of hon. Members, including many Labour Members, believe that the position should be changed by ASLEF realising that it is running itself, the industry and the future of the railways into a disastrous cul-de-sac. It is essential for Labour Members and all who are worried about the future of the railways to bring home to ASLEF the need to lift the strike and to accept flexible rosters before disastrous and permanent damage is done to the railway system.

London Airport (Redundancies)

Mr. Russell Kerr: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 9, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
the recently announced redundancies at London airport involving 7,000 British Airways staff and their effect on the employment situation in the area.
The matter is specific because it refers to a report in The Guardian on 12 July quoting British Airways management as announcing 7,000 redundancies in addition to the 10,000 announced last year. It has thrown a deep depression over that part of West Middlesex and elsewhere. It affects my constituents, many of whom are employed by British Airways, which is the largest employer in the area.
As the latest victim of the Government's ill-judged monetarist policies, the flag-carrying British airline feels especially bitter because, as one of Britain's high technology industries with a distinguished record as a leading international carrier, British Airways has been a mobile shop window for British skill and technology and has been of enormous benefit to British industry in its relations with other countries.
The rundown of British Airways is tied to the sale of the airline to private interests—the privatisation about which we hear so much today from people whose ignorance of the industry is matched only by their capacity to talk through their pockets. It should not blind us to the fact that the dismantling of British Airways is equivalent to the sabotage by stealth of one of Britain's major economic assets, on which we are told that our future will depend increasingly and in which the skill and inventiveness of the British workman is as nothing compared with the thirst for profit exhibited by the entrepreneurs.
No one will deny that, whoever ultimately owns the airline, it is important not only to my constituents, many thousands of whom gain their livelihoods as British Airways employees, but because aviation is the industry in which Britain leads the world, although any British breakthrough must cross the Atlantic to achieve proper recognition. Few, if any, of the world's aviation observers would doubt British skills in this industry.
The problem demands urgent consideration and the arithmetic of the proposals argues the case most eloquently. Although the series of redundancies, totalling about 10,000 during the past year, has in many cases resulted in a fairly thick cushion being provided to soften the discomfort of job loss, at least temporarily, thousands of British Airways' highly skilled workers are being slung unceremoniously on to the labour market at a time when economic prospects, according to almost every economist except the Chancellor of the Exchequer, have hit rock bottom.
If we do not succumb to the Chancellors's gloom, in a year or two we may, with luck, have a Labour Government and some adult economic policies in place of the juvenile monetarism that is the best that we can manage at the moment.
It is important that we realise that the profit entrepreneurs, who are interested not in the industry but


in its money-making opportunities, now have the scent of victory in their nostrils and are being encouraged greatly by the Government in their hunt for quick profits from the exploitation of Government assets. When the full extent of the "steal" being operated by those highwaymen is understood by the public, the position will probably correct itself, so great will be public revulsion. In the meantime, those of us privileged to see the pattern from long association with the industry are seized of the idea of urgent action being taken by the House of Commons to protect the people's interests and their property before it is too late.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Feltham and Heston (Mr. Kerr) gave me notice before noon today that he would seek leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing
the recently announced redundancies at London airport involving 7,000 British Airways staff and their effect on the employment situation in the area".
The House listened with concern as the hon. Gentleman outlined his anxieties. He knows that I am instructed to give no reason for my decision. I must rule that the hon. Gentleman's submission does not fall within the provisions of the Standing Order and, therefore, I cannot submit his application to the House.

"Atlantic Conveyor" (Replacement)

Mr. Don Dixon: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 9, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
The building by British Shipbuilders of a replacement to the 'Atlantic Conveyor'.
The importance of this order being placed in this country is evident from the fact that no fewer than three early-day motions about it appear on the Order Paper—541, signed by 123 right hon. and hon. Members, 545, signed by 59 right hon. and hon. Members, and 602, signed by 31 right hon. and hon. Members.
The importance of the order being placed with British Shipbuilders was stressed only this morning by a deputation which was led by my hon. Friends the Members for Whitehaven (Dr. Cunningham) and Newcastle upon Tyne, Central (Mr. Cowans), together with the leader of the Tyne and Wear county council, Michael Campbell, and senior shop stewards from the Tyne shipbuilding yards.
On the river Tyne, almost 10,000 men work directly for British Shipbuilders and many more thousands work in the supporting industries. Whole communities depend on British Shipbuilders for their livelihood. The order would save not only many hundreds of jobs, but would give an important boost to the British shipbuilding industry throughout the world.
It is important for the House to have an urgent debate, because there has been talk that the order may go to Japan or Korea. It is no good Lord Matthews, the chairman of Cunard, telling the British people through his newspapers during the Falklands dispute that they should be patriotic, and then giving an order for the replacement of a ship that was sunk during the war to a shipyard outside this country. That would seem to be a betrayal of all the relatives of people who were killed and injured and who fought in the Falklands war.
The debate would also give us an opportunity to stress the importance of the British shipbuilding industry to this country, and to pay tribute to the men and women who worked so hard to put the task force to sea.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Jarrow (Mr. Dixon) gave me notice before noon today that he would seek leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he believes should have urgent consideration, namely,
The building by British Shipbuilders of a replacement to the 'Atlantic Conveyor'.
The House will have listened with anxious concern to the hon. Gentleman as he brought undoubtedly important matters to our notice. However, he and the House are aware that I decide not whether the matter should be discussed, but solely whether there should be an emergency debate of three hours.
The House has instructed me to give no reasons for my decision.
I have given careful consideration to the hon. Gentleman's representations, but I must rule that his submission does not fall within the provisions of the Standing Order. Therefore, I cannot submit his application to the House.

Leasehold Flats Reform

Mr. John Fraser: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to reform the law relating to long leasehold flats; to provide for the right to extend leases and to establish a Commission to recommend further reforms; and for related purposes.
I ask leave to introduce a measure of leasehold reform for the benefit of those who are the owner-occupiers of flats and maisonettes, but for the sake of brevity I shall refer only to flat owners.
In 1967, Parliament passed the Leasehold Reform Act, which enables the resident owners of leasehold houses, as opposed to flats, to extend their leases by up to 50 years, or to buy the freehold. At that time some of the Tory defenders of landlords called it "Rachmanism in reverse". However, the Act was a great success, and it was strengthened only recently by the present Government in the Housing Act 1980.
However, the 1967 Act contained one important omission: it did not apply to flats and maisonettes. Now the problems of those who own flats are becoming more acute as leases grow shorter and less saleable and as defects in the form of leases become more apparent. This problem exists not only in urban areas and cities, but it is also quite acute in some seaside areas where houses have been converted to flats.
In the Bill I propose three reforms. The first is to give every resident owner of a flat the right to call for an extension of the lease by 50 years on reasonable terms. The 1967 Act created that right for leasehold house occupiers, and in my view it should be extended to flat owners. The selling of flats started in large numbers in the 1930s, because of the pressures on land, and those leases, some of which were granted for 99 years and others for shorter periods, are now less than 50 years old and as the leases grow shorter they become less mortgageable and less saleable and people's mobility is put in jeopardy. The greatest asset of lessees is withering, and there is evidence that landlords are not merely unreasonable but sometimes guilty of downright exploitation in the terms on which they give a renewal or extension. The bargaining power between landlord and tenant is usually unequal, and it needs to be remedied by law. The citizen's security of his home is a sacred right, and I want to protect and extend it.
Secondly, a number of covenants need to be implied into leases of flats and maisonettes so as to cure defects that have become apparent. Let me give some examples of the way in which those defects impair the transferability or value of a leasehold flat. In some cases, the landlord has the power to repair the main structure of which the flat forms a part, but although he has the power to do that, there is no obligation on him because of the drafting of the

leases, even although the landlord recovers all his expenses from the tenant. I propose that a clause that puts an obligation on the landlord to repair the main structure should be implied in every lease.
In other cases, although landlords may reserve the right in leases to carry out insurance themselves, many of them do not undertake to insure for the full replacement value, nor are they willing to note on their policies the interest of lessees and mortgagees. As a result, the property may not be fully insured, or there is the unnecessary expense of double insurance, or in some cases actual resistance by building societies to grant mortgages on them.
Thirdly, landlords sometimes charge excessive fees for licences to assign. My opinion, on the whole, is that the licence to assign can be dispensed with altogether. I see no reason why the landlord's permission is needed in ordinary cases. It is a relic of serfdom which, in my view, should now go.
There is a fourth point, that many covenants in leases should be mutually enforceable. So I propose a number of implied covenants to deal with these problems.
Lastly, I propose a step towards a major reform in leasehold law. At present, it is difficult to legislate for freehold flats. The law needs a thorough reappraisal. I propose that long leasehold tenants generally should collectively have the right that is given to leasehold houseowners individually—that is, the right to own, control, and manage the freeholds of the properties in which they live. Many enlightened property developers do this in new developments now. The drafting of such a scheme is ambitious. There is not the facility in a Private Member's Bill to do that. I therefore suggest the establishment of a commission to look into the possibility, on the one hand, of freehold flats, and on the other hand of the establishment of a condominium for the management of leasehold blocks. That practice is common in the United States and in many parts of Europe.
I believe that the relationship between a man and a woman and their home and land is fundamental. This Bill will make that relationship more secure and more free from exploitation and abuse, and I ask the leave of the House to introduce a Bill for those purposes.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. John Fraser, Mr. John Tilley, Mr. A. W. Stallard, Mr. John Wheeler, Mr. Alfred Dubs, Mr. Frank Allaun and Mr. Christopher Price.

LEASEHOLD FLATS REFORM

Mr. John Fraser accordingly presented a Bill to reform the law relating to long leasehold flats; to provide for the right to extend leases and to establish a Commission to recommend further reforms; and for related purposes. And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 165.]

Orders of the Day — SUPPLY

[24TH ALLOTTED DAY]—considered

Regional and Industrial Policies

Mr. Speaker: I have selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.

Mr. John Prescott: I beg to move,
That this House is appalled at the drastic increase in unemployment throughout every region in the United Kingdom, and the continuing decline of Great Britain's industrial base; condemns the Government's regional policies and the recent proposals on assisted areas as totally inadequate; and calls for the implementation of the policies of the Labour Party's 'Plan for Jobs' which would lead to increased investment and employment.
The motion addresses itself to the disastrous three years of unemployment that have been imposed on Britain. In three years of Tory rule we have had the highest level of unemployment, the largest fall in total output and the greatest collapse of production since the 1920s, and the end is not yet in sight. Against that background, no regional policy, however generous and powerful, can possibly hope to achieve its objectives—to end regional disparities, both economic and social, within our regions.
In the past six months I have spent at least four days in every region of the United Kingdom, along with my hon. Friend the Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Pendry). We have witnessed the despair and the tragic waste of human and capital resources in the regions. Today, there are over three million registered unemployed—12·8 per cent.—in our employment exchanges. For every 100 people unemployed at the time the Labour Government left office, the Government have added to the dole queue in the Saatchi poster a further 227 people.
I have no desire to hide the fact that there was increased unemployment under Labour. I take that as a measure of the increasing economic crisis that many of the developed economies are beginning to face in the future as in the past decade. That should give us some idea of the policies that are necessary to solve our problems. However, the depth of a recession and the scale of unemployment are directly related to the policies of any Government. In the five years of the Labour Government up to 1979, despite unemployment doubling, we were able to increase jobs so that at the end of our term of office a quarter of a million extra people were employed as a result of our regional and central policies.
Under the three years of Tory Government the scale of job loss has been phenomenal. It makes even the three-day week under the Heath Government look good. Under Labour, unemployment grew by 160,000 a year over five years. Due to deliberate Government policy, unemployment has grown at the rate of 566,000 a year—3·5 times the rate of increase in unemployment under Labour. The Government have certainly set about creating unemployment with a vengeance.
No doubt the Secretary of State will tell us today, as we were told last week, that such unemployment is due to

world recession. That is reflected in the amendment to our motion. Funnily enough, we did not hear much of that from the Conservatives when they were in opposition.
I have been to the Library to look at the OECD figures in order to see the scale of that world depression. Between 1964 and 1979 Britain's unemployment followed the middle way of the seven largest developed nations. Average unemployment grew from 2·9 per cent. in 1964 to 5·6 per cent. in 1979. Increasing levels of unemployment and inflation in all developed economies were coupled with reduced returns on profits and growth. Those factors inevitably create conflicts, difficulties and crises, particularly in developed economies experiencing stagflation.
However, between 1964 and 1979 the United Kingdom's unemployment record stayed in the middle range of percentage of unemployment for OECD countries. The present average rate of unemployment in OECD countries is 7·5 per cent. Britain's growth in unemployment at 12·4 per cent. is 3·5 times greater than the average increase in OECD countries.
With that measure it is possible to quantify the effect of the world depression upon the various economies, particularly upon the British economy. While it is a crude estimate, it is reasonable to suppose that if we had stayed on the middle course of the past 15 years, there would have been an increase in unemployment of approximately 400,000 people. If that figure is deducted from the unemployment created by the Government, it can be seen that for one reason or another, directly or indirectly, they have presided over an economy that has produced 1·3 million more unemployed than in the similar economies of OECD countries.
Mass unemployment is inevitably the result of Government policy and was predicted when they made clear their belief in the monetary policies that they intended upon. Some Tories have professed surprise at the scale of what has occurred. Other people, such as myself, believe that it was part of a calculated policy. The Government are committed to reduce inflation at the direct expense of jobs and growth as a result if their fanatical devotion to monetarism, high interest rates and the abolition of exchange rate controls. The results were predicted by the relevant economic forecasting institutions.
The increase in unemployment is not the result of any coincidence or natural law. The Government are committed to public expenditure cuts, although looking at the figures as a proportion of the gross domestic product, public expenditure continues to increase due to unemployment pay. However, the main effects of Government policy have been upon capital expenditure, investment and job creation—as has been borne out time and time again in debates in the House. One sees that effect in local authorities housing programmes, for example, and in investment in nationalised industries such as British Rail. The inadequacy of British Rail investment did not begin in 1979 but the effects have accumulated. British Rail is today attempting to close workshops to save 8,000 jobs and £18 million while at the same time the Government are considering giving £180 million to bring Nissan to Britain for 5,000 jobs. I come from one of the areas that are bidding for that project. I hope that the Secretary of State will give us a statement on the latest position. I am sure that many of my hon Friends would like


to hear what he has to say. One well understands the concern about that in view of the present rate of unemployment.
The Government's priorities in public expenditure programmes are reflected in cuts in housing and nationalised industries in order to increase spending on defence, law and order and increased benefits for more and more unemployed. Therefore, it is no surprise to see an acceleration in the many thousands of jobs that have been lost in the public sector.
The Government's high interest rate policy has inevitably caused a collapse in demand. The mass private sector has collapsed with a record number of bankruptcies and there has been an accelerated reduction in manufacturing investment which, compared with when the Labour Government left office, is a 24 per cent. reduction in real terms. All those factors inevitably contribute to the reduction of available jobs.
A major area for attention must surely be the manufacturing sector. Cuts there have had tremendous effects in the West Midlands and other areas. There has been a loss of 2 million jobs in the manufacturing sector since 1976. All that must be added to the lunatic policy of capital outflows, which was debated in the House last night, and which has resulted in the net flow of over £6·5 million out of Britain to investment abroad.
My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Cook) pointed out that in one year alone three companies were responsible for one-third of that cash outflow and that they had contributed to the loss of over 17,000 jobs through lack of investment. Indeed, 22 per cent. of British investment goes abroad, whereas in Japan 0·6 per cent. of investment goes abroad. In other manufacturing countries, no more than 5 per cent. is invested abroad. I think that I have made the case that in this country investors invest abroad rather than in our industries. The Government's policies have directly encouraged that.
No doubt we shall be told that the real problem is high labour costs. Although Britain's workers have the lowest wages in Europe, and although Britain's investment per man is the lowest in Europe, we shall no doubt again be treated to the Government's argument about the problem of labour costs. The Government's words will have a hollow ring compared with the examples that can be cited in both the private and public sectors. For example, in the textile industries of Yorkshire, Humberside and the North-West, 300 plants and 50 per cent. of the labour force have been lost, although, even according to the Government, productivity is as high there as elsewhere. Nevertheless, the market cannot be protected without import controls or some quotas as the Government are doing.
British Steel has witnessed a massive cut in manpower and it can now claim that its productivity is as good as that in Europe. However, even with those high productivity levels, no one can give any guarantee or assurance about the future size of that industry. Perhaps the Secretary of State will give us some idea of the future for those industries, as their problems have given rise to considerable concern in most of the regions that I have visited.
Against that economic background, no regional policy has any chance of working. If the Government do not get the central economic policy right, regional policies will be unable to work effectively to reduce unemployment. However, in 1979, the then Secretary of State for Industry,

the right hon. Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph), proceeded to dismantle the regional policy that then existed. He scrapped the planning economic councils, which the counties are now desperately trying to replace with some form of organisation. He gave a commitment to review assisted area policy so that he could save money and he decided to abolish industrial development certificates. The market place was to determine everything and there was to be a reduction in regional development grants.
Given the catastrophic effect on employment, I should have thought that the Secretary of State would have reconsidered his policy when he realised its results. However, in our debates last week we were treated only to the news that another 1 per cent. of the population may be covered. Given the scale of unemployment, that news is not worthy of comment.

Mr. Anthony Beaumont-Dark: Since 1976, £3,740 million has been spent on regional aid. Does the hon. Gentleman really believe that that aid has created new jobs that have not been lost elsewhere?

Mr. Prescott: We must all address ourselves to that fundamental point. The Select Committee was right to query whether the £5,000 million spent has been deployed effectively. However, that is not to say that we should not allocate resources to disadvantaged areas or that regional policies have not provided extra jobs. However, regional policy can no longer be directed towards minority areas. There is mass unemployment in every part of the United Kingdom and regional policy has a major part to play. Nevertheless, I accept that we must rethink its role.
Today, we are dealing with the Government's record. They have had two years in which to consider the problem. They have begun to review the situation. Last week, there was a statement on their conclusions. Unemployment stands at 12·8 per cent. and many travel-to-work-areas have unemployment rates as high as 30 per cent. and even 40 per cent. or 50 per cent. Unemployment in every area has doubled. I notice that there are not many Conservative Members in the Chamber from constituencies in the South-East. I am sure that the Tory Party has more Members of Parliament for constituencies in the South-East than the one or two Conservative Members now nodding their heads.
In the South-East and the West Midlands, unemployment has increased faster than in many of the traditional areas of unemployment. Even in the traditional areas, unemployment has doubled. The usual approach has been to consider the traditional areas of high unemployment such as Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales, whose problems have doubled since the Conservative Party came to office. The West Midlands now joins those areas and wants development area status. It ranks with the traditional areas in terms of the percentage of those unemployed.
However, in any consideration of regional policy, the absolute levels of unemployment must be taken into account. The absolute levels become important when considering the mass unemployment that faces us today, which is likely only to increase. For example, the South-East now accounts for 24 per cent. of unemployment and the problem is particularly severe in the London area. Unemployment in that area has increased from 337,000 to 700,000. The West Midlands now accounts for 12 per


cent. of unemployment and unemployment there has increased from 132,000 to 350,000. Those two areas are not traditional areas of high unemployment, yet they are now responsible for 36 per cent. of unemployment and for 1·5 million of the unemployed. That fact cannot be ignored by any Government. Unemployment has doubled in the traditional areas and even the most profitable wealth-producing areas have been reduced to problem areas.
It is sad to go to the West Midlands and to be told that it is now a candidate for development area status. Last week, the Secretary of State told us that he had not received any representations from industrialists to make the West Midlands a development area. Can he honestly say that about the local authorities that have been knocking on his door asking for something to be done about unemployment? Against that background, the Secretary of State told the House that he would carry out a new review which would bear in mind two principles. First, there were to be acceptable limits. Presumably, that means money. When the Government lay down conditions, they always involve money. Secondly, the Government said that they wanted to concentrate aid where it was most needed.
I shall examine the Secretary of State's proposals and measure them against his own criteria. I have suggested that the acceptable limits refer only to saving money. To reduce the areas covered by two-thirds and to make aid available to only 26 per cent. of the population, will produce a saving of only £200 million or £300 million. After the announcement I looked at the figures that had been given for regional aid. The Secretary of State told us that in 1982, he proposed a limit of £850 million, which would fall, by 1983, to £768 million.
I asked the Library to put those figures against a common base line. The reality is that between 1964 and 1974, we spent £350 million on regional aid with ½ million unemployed. Between 1975 and 1980 we spent £520 million per annum with 1 million unemployed. The amount was almost doubled in line with the increase in unemployment. However, the Government now propose to reduce the sum to £324 million, when unemployment stands at 3 million and is rising. Dated back to 1975, £324 million is the real figure, according to Library sources. The Government apparently intend to spend as much as was spent in 1967 on the same minority areas although the problem is six times greater than it was then. Anyone who can consider devoting resources under those circumstances cannot have thought about their proper use. Judged by the criteria of the 1960s and 1970s, because of the percentage of unemployment, most areas would be eligible for aid.

Mr. Frank Hooley: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right, but, in addition, there is the compounding effect of the massive cuts in housing, and the cuts in public expenditure that have shown that there is a lack of interest in regional policies.

Mr. Prescott: The point is a powerful one. I am sure that it is not lost on this side of the House. These points are constantly made during debates and at Question Time, but they do not appear to have a great deal of effect on the Government. Scotland, Wales and the North, which are traditionally areas of high unemployment, have double the problems that they had when the Government took office. Those areas account for 29 per cent. of the country's

unemployed people, but due to mass unemployment that has reduced to 26 per cent. The Government propose to increase aid to those areas from 56 per cent. to 65 per cent. of the money available. I do not question that those areas need every penny that they can get. In Yorkshire, Humberside and the North-West unemployment remains at 45 per cent. and there has been a cut from 34 per cent. to 17 per cent. in assisted area status. The rest of the United Kingdom accounts for 44 per cent. of the country's unemployment and yet they receive no aid under the proposals.
The Government seem to believe that unemployment in the regions is concentrated in a minority of areas on which a minority of the money is to be concentrated. That was their thinking in the 1960s. It flies in the face of the evidence and reflects their ignorance of what is happening in the peripheral areas of the country. We should want to correct that in any new regional policy proposals. I believe that the Government's regional policy is underfunded and wrongly conceived.
It is not surprising therefore that local authorities with high levels of unemployment should try to do something about jobs in their areas. Counties such as the West Midlands or the GLC, which are Labour authorities, are developing enterprise boards connected to pension funds, and are beginning to create jobs. District authorities, such as Sheffield, Norwich, Hull and many others that we visited, are not just dealing with land use planning, but actively using their money to create permanent jobs. They have shown what can be done by local authorities and a possible way forward. They have used section 317 and the 2p rate as a means of financing such activities.
A report from the Association of District Councils—most of which, I believe, are Tory controlled—demands from the Government more power and resources to develop jobs in their areas. It points out that every unemployed man costs £4,380 a year. I am using the figures from the report. That is 70 per cent. of the average wage. If that sum was added to local authority public expenditure programmes, they could at a stroke contribute effectively to reducing unemployment in their areas. A powerful case is made out for that.
What has the Government's attitude been towards local government? They attacked local government about the 2p rate and sought to reduce it. They failed to achieve that in the House of Lords because the Tories revolted against the Government denying local authorities the chance to do something about their problems.
The Government have set up urban development corporations and enterprise zones and sent a busload of bankers around. They all undermine the role of the local authority and give power to outside bodies. They remove accountability for public money from local people and deny them the opportunity to deal with their own problems. Regional policy must reflect the fact that local authorities have a powerful role to play in developing indigenously their own economy. The day of mass mobile industries roaming our country being tempted with bags of gold, has gone. We are saying not that we do not want them, but that that is not the answer to the problem. A great deal of money was given away with a lack of corresponding accountability and was largely concentrated upon manufacturing.
I look at the Government's policies to see what might happen in the future. I look at what the Cambridge Economic Policy Group says—I have about six various


institutes' projections here—and it has projected that by 1990, if the Government's policies continue, 4½ million people will be unemployed. It predicts that 3·4 million people will be unemployed by the end of the year. The Government have rejected those figures, but Sir Terence Beckett said last night in this Palace that he believed that that would be the figure by the end of the year.
It seems that the Cambridge Economic Policy Group is on target with this year's figures. They are better projections than the figures given by the Government during the past year. At least half a million jobs a year must be created to reach the employment levels the people are entitled to expect. We believe that the mixed economy and market forces cannot produce that growth in the rate of jobs. It cannot produce the rate of growth necessary to obtain extra investment and create jobs.
We commit ourselves in a detailed policy statement to reaffirm a principle that was embodied in the 1944 White Paper which we have included in our "Plan for Jobs". It states:
The Government accept as one of their primary aims and responsibilities the maintenance of a high and stable level of employment.
We reaffirm our commitment to that. We reject that the control of inflation is a precondition to achieving high growth in employment. By our "Plan for Jobs" we aim to reduce unemployment to at least 1 million in four years. We have detailed our plans for expansion in the public sector in all the documents that we have produced over the past few months. I do not have time to go over all the details, but they are published and no doubt people will study them. We might hear something about them from the Secretary of State today.
We spell out what we believe to be the way forward. We have not yet completed all the details of our proposals, but we are continuing to work on them. We have plans for expansion. We shall effectively operate import quotas to protect our industrial base. We shall have exchange controls and work on exchange and interest rates to provide resources for growth and job creation.
The Cambridge Economic Policy Group has assessed our alternative strategy and has said that it will reduce unemployment to 2 million. We dispute that figure, because we believe that we can achieve more than that. The different figures that it gives for our policy and the Government's—a difference of 2 million—justify our policy. People believe that our policy is feasible. I accept that it will not be easy to achieve.
We seek to implement our policy against a framework of industrial democracy and plans at both national and regional levels. Our policy at national level is one of major planning intervention. That is identified in the alternative economic strategy. It will be necessary to reflect that in the regions. We shall give all the regions planning boards and development agencies. We shall actively encourage local authorities to develop their indigenous economies. We shall make such bodies accountable to the regions and in the regions. That will ensure a positive regional policy with resources to match, determining its priorities and co-ordinated within a national economic strategy, to reduce the curse of unemployment.
More work is being done on the interface problems between regions and the centre, the instruments of accountability and the criteria of need and resource allocation. We believe that those plans are necessary to achieve our goal—deeply committed to it as we are—of

returning our people to fun employment, using all their skills both at national and at regional level. We reject a Government who call on men to produce ships and to man them in that South Atlantic war, and then after the war to say to them "You cannot build the replacements. You cannot sail on the ships, because you are too expensive." Our policies, combined with the talent and energies of our people, can throw off the scourge of mass unemployment which has been deliberately impressed upon us by this Government.

The Secretary of State for Industry (Mr. Patrick Jenkin): I beg to move, to leave out from "That" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
'this House, whilst sharing the deep concern for the unemployed, recognises that today's unemployment reflects a loss of competitiveness over many years as well as the effect of the world recession; supports Her Majesty's Government in their objective of creating conditions in which all parts of the country can prosper; further supports Her Majesty's Government in concentrating their regional industrial policy in the areas of greatest need; and rejects the proposals of Her Majesty's Official Opposition as leading only to higher inflation and more unemployment.'
We do not often hear the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) speaking from the Dispatch Box. By any standards, he made a forceful and effective speech and I congratulate him. He has earned a reputation for doing his homework. His speech was studded with figures and facts, the product of his efforts and those of the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Pendry). Hon. Members will wish to study those facts and figures.
The gloss that the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East put upon the policies that would be pursued by the Labour Party if it came to power scarcely reflects reality. I shall draw the attention of the House, and of employers and employees, to what might lie in store for them if the Labour Party ever comes to office again and the country has the misfortune to live under a Labour Government. Labour Weekly did a signal service in alerting us to the horrors in store. The hon. Gentleman referred to few of them.
I shall set out the position of British industry as I see it. The hon. Member properly concentrated on regional policy and I shall say something about that. We can agree that all the regional policy in the world will not solve the long-standing, deep-seated problems of many areas which go back over many decades, unless we get the health of our industry right and the economy once again producing the wealth that we need. I shall examine the main thrust of the Government's industrial policy, where it is succeeding and where there is still much progress to be made.
The hon. Gentleman made some wild charges. I resent the accusation that the Government deliberately set out to create unemployment. I hope that we can debate the issues without flinging around such accusations. I hope to present the House with a more balanced picture.

Mr. Bob Cryer: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Jenkin: No. I have only just started my speech.
When we put our policies before the country at the last election we made it clear that after many decades of relative industrial decline and lost competitiveness, we would not be able to put things right in a year or two. We


said firmly in our manifesto that the job would take two Parliaments. We are just one-third of the way through that period.

Mr. Jack Straw: Where was that in the manifesto?

Mr. Jenkin: If it was not in the manifesto, it should have been.
The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East made no reference to the word "competitiveness". My proposition is one of such stark and obvious truth that even the hon. Gentleman might be prepared to accept it. It is that the success of British industry lies in winning markets and providing jobs for the people of Britain. That depends upon industry being competitive. It means being competitive not only on price, but in design, technology, quality and reliability, in delivery and in after-sales service. Where we are competitive we can hold on to our markets and win new ones.
In the course of my peregrinations round the country I have had contact with many splendid firms—large, medium and small—which are doing just that. Many are taking on extra people and increasing their share of the market. Many are exporting between 60 per cent. and 80 per cent. of their output. We have lost markets generally because we are, or have become, uncompetitive.
The second fact which we must keep firmly fixed in our minds is that between 1975 and the beginning of 1981, industry in Britain became about 50 per cent. less competitive in terms of unit labour costs vis-à-vis our main industrial competitors. There is no magic in the period that I have chosen. The figure was given in the recent paper that the National Economic Development Council discussed last week. By far the biggest cause of our disastrous decline in competitiveness is the fact that wage and price inflation over the period sent our costs and prices rocketing. At the same time North Sea oil was coming on stream. That underpinned our currency and prevented the slide in the value of the pound which such inflation would otherwise have produced.
The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East used the word "inflation" twice when talking about the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development in general. At no stage did he recognise that Britain's inflation record over a long period, not just when the Labour Government were in power, has been significantly worse than that of most of our industrial competitors. Our relative lack of competitiveness goes back many decades during which productivity in other countries advanced faster than in Britain.
When world markets were rising strongly our falling share of world trade still allowed us to expand our markets. and so to achieve over the years a modest rate of economic growth. The repeated oil shocks; by slowing down the growth of world trade, left us losing absolutely as well as relatively and brought home to us starkly how far we had lost competitiveness compared to the rest of the world. The prime aim of any Government must be to restore the competitiveness of British industry.

Mr. Albert Roberts: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that to become competitive inducements must be given? No inducements have been offered by the Government. If workers do not receive inducements they do not give of their best.

Mr. Jenkin: I agree with most of that. I welcome the hon. Gentleman's recognition of the role of incentives. An incentive was provided by cutting the rate of income tax. People are only human and they respond to incentives. That philosophy has been at the heart of my party's policy for many years.
If inflation coupled with lack of productivity is the most serious cause of our loss of competitiveness, winning the battle against inflation is perhaps the most valuable thing that we can do to help industry. The good news is that inflation is now in single figures. The prospects are that the rate of inflation will come down steadily for the rest of this year and into next year. The trend is firmly down, and I hope that that can be common ground between us.
I have said on many occasions that the Government's first task is to aim to create the conditions and climate in which industry can prosper. Curbing inflation is by far the most important element in that task. I shall remind the House yet again that on present trends the Government will be the first since the 1950s who will face the electorate with a lower average rate of inflation than the Government they followed.

Mr. Straw: rose—

Mr. Jenkin: I shall come to the connection between inflation and jobs in a moment. The key to becoming competitive is to reduce inflation. The key to getting more jobs is to become more competitive. That is the essential truth. In the 10 months that I have held my present office, I have met hundreds of industrialists of all shades of opinion. I have met hardly any who do not accept, first, that the control of inflation is the most important single benefit we could bring to their businesses and, secondly, that the Government's policies to achieve that must be sustained if they are to succeed. Of course industry is concerned about high interest rates. Of course industry is worried about the costs imposed on it by central and local government.
The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East sought a much larger role for local government in job creation. I am convinced that more jobs are lost by the impost of high rates on industry than are ever created by all the well-meaning efforts of local government to create employment. Of course industry wants to see its markets expanding so that it can make and sell more goods.

Mr. Straw: Is the Secretary of State aware that the Government's figures show that rates, as a proportion of manufacturing industry's total costs, are 0·66 per cent. of the total, a tiny proportion, particularly when compared with interest charges, which are very much greater? It is the increase in interest charges, created by the Government, which has lost thousands and thousands more jobs than rate increases.

Mr. Jenkin: The hon. Gentleman is entitled to his opinion. When I go out on the Terrace of the House and see that ridiculous banner on County Hall and know that the GLC put a 93 per cent. rate increase on commerce and industry in the Greater London area, I wonder whether profligacy can go further than that.

Mr. Cryer: The GLC poster has really hurt the Secretary of State.

Mr. Jenkin: It does not hurt at all because it is humbug.
Industrialists are realistic. They recognise that high interest rates, rising public sector costs and falling markets are some of the results of high inflation.
As I go round the country I am left in no doubt whatever that if we were now to embark on policies which would lead inexorably to the resurgence of inflation, we would forfeit, and rightly forfeit, the confidence of the great mass of British industry. Higher growth, higher employment and higher investment are our objectives. But they will not be achieved unless we first master inflation. That is why sticking to the medium term financial strategy is absolutely crucial to the health of industry and, the overwhelmingly majority of those responsible for managing industry in this country support that to the hilt.
If it is the Government's responsibility to control inflation, it is industry's responsibility to become efficient, to raise productivity and to win back market share. Let us consider productivity. Part of the cause of our loss of competitiveness lies with past productivity performance which, when compared with our neighbours, has not been good.
Productivity rose rapidly last year. In the first quarter of 1982, output per head in manufacturing industry was 12 per cent. higher than at the end of 1980 and 5½ per cent. higher than the average for 1979, a peak year in the productivity cycle.
I would not deny for one moment—here again there should be common ground—that this marked improvement in productivity is partly the result of the straightforward reduction in overmanning, which has been one of the symptoms of the British disease. Of course this has contributed to the present distressingly high unemployment figures. However, it must be good for Britain, for instance, that the same amount of steel is now being produced at Port Talbot in South Wales by 5,500 men when it used to take 12,000 men to produce. It must be good for Britain that, on the production lines at Longbridge, productivity has improved 100 per cent. over the past year. It must be good for Britain that up and down the country firms large and small are beginning to get their costs under control, their output per head rising fast and their goods priced more competitively. Pay is a vital element in costs, and the more moderate pay settlements of the past year have greatly helped to improve competitiveness and so to save jobs.
The link between pay moderation, unemployment and the creation of new jobs is vital to the understanding of the problem of unemployment. The combined effect of rising productivity and more sensible pay settlements has been to improve dramatically the rate of increase of unit labour costs. Compared with a rate of over 25 per cent. 18 months ago, in the year to the first quarter of 1982, unit wage and salary costs rose by only 2½ per cent.—a rate on a par with Germany, and better than Japan, America and France. That is the way that we shall win back markets. That is the way to create jobs. There is no other way.
There is another lesson.

Mr. Nigel Spearing: I noticed that the right hon. Gentleman has not denied the assertion of my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) that labour costs in Britain are smaller than those of many of our competitors. Does he agree that the unit labour cost figure, which he has just quoted, includes the use of that labour, the skills of management and the costs of many other factors? He should admit that the cost

of labour in relation to our competitors, particularly in Europe, is a vital factor, which has been kept down despite inflation.

Mr. Jenkin: .I was comparing the movement in unit labour costs. We lost 50 per cent. of competitiveness, measured in terms of unit labour costs, over the six years between 1975 and 1981. We have won back a part of that but we have a long way to go.

Mr. Straw: Rubbish.

Mr. Jenkin: If this improvement—there has been a worthwhile improvement—is to succeed it must be sustained over many years. As I said a moment ago, we regained about 10 per cent. of the 50 per cent. we have lost. We have a long way to go even to get back to the relative position that we held in 1975. That is why my right hon. and learned Friend, the Chancellor of the Exchequer was absolutely right to stress as he did the other day that there can be no let-up on pay.
All the efforts of industry to raise efficiency, to come out with improved designs and competitive products, to fight for markets across the world, and to create employment at home will come to nothing if the whole benefit is swallowed up in higher pay and if labour costs are allowed once again to run out of control.
On the contrary, as inflation falls, it makes sense from every angle that pay settlements should also come down. Indeed, we must continually hammer home the message that higher pay must be earned by higher output. Those who determine the level of pay claims need to have at the forefronts of their minds the simple truth about the link between pay and unemployment. If higher pay pushes up costs faster than those of our competitors, the consequence can only be lost jobs and longer dole queues.
While pay moderation cannot guarantee employment—no one can guarantee employment—it will be a powerful help in sustaining employment. Some hon. Members may think that I am labouring the point too much.

Mr. Prescott: Hear, hear.

Mr. Jenkin: The hon. Gentleman may be right because I believe that those essential truths are becoming well understood on the shop floor of industry. Much of the moderation and the common sense that we have seen in the past year or two is—

Mr. Stanley Orme: If the Secretary of State is laying such emphasis on pay policy, where is the justice in the Government giving judges and senior civil servants pay rises that are far in excess of what is being offered to Health Service workers and many others?

Mr. Jenkin: I have no doubt that the right hon. Gentleman, with his customary care and meticulousness, has studied the comparative figures over a period. He will know that those covered by the Top Salaries Review Body were never subject to the catching-up exercise, which, when I presided over the Health Service, increased the pay of people such as nurses by more than 50 per cent. in two years.
That essential truth about the link between pay, competitiveness and employment must be understood by everyone. Some people talk about making sacrifices for the common good. I do not want to use that language because it is a matter of sheer common sense and self-interest.
We all want to see industry succeed. We all want to see faster growth, rising standards of living and better social services. We shall achieve them to the extent that we as a nation, through our industry, manufacturing and services, can earn them by our own efforts. Yes, we are beginning to win back lost competitiveness, but we have a long way to go.
If the defeat of inflation and the restoration of competitiveness is our first object, the second is to remove obstacles in the way of industry's greater success. Much has been done. We have abolished pay, price, dividend and exchange controls. The burden of United Kingdom Corporation tax now compares favourably with other countries. With the improvements introduced by this Government, we have a system of capital allowances and stock relief among the most generous anywhere. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) jeers at those things, but they affect the ability of industry to compete. We have cut the top rates of personal tax, which were inhibiting enterprise in industry, we have improved the tax treatment of share options and we have made a start on cutting the national insurance surcharge, a direct cost on industry, which was imposed by the Labour Party and increased by the Labour Party. We have begun to cut it back. We have taken measures to reduce the burden of the public sector on industry.

Mr. Michael McGuire: Will the Secretary of State give way?

Mr. Jenkin: I have given way many times. I must continue my speech. I know that many hon. Members wish to speak.
Wherever possible, nationalised industries, or parts of them, are being returned to real public ownership and the disciplines of competition.

Mr. Prescott: The profitable ones.

Mr. Jenkin: They are the only ones that anyone is prepared to buy.

Mr. McGuire: On the question of assistance—

Mr. Jenkin: I shall not give way.
The list of firms returned to public ownership is long, including British Aerospace, Cable and Wireless and the National Freight Corporation. There are others in the pipeline. Competition is being opened up. I have licensed the world's first competive telecommunications network in Mercury, to compete with British Telecommunications. Where we cannot have competition, we must have exacting performance targets backed up by financial disciplines and monitoring.
There should be common ground across the House about small firms. Lord Lever persuaded the Labour Party that small firms had an important role to play. They have faced a wide range of obstacles in obtaining the appropriate finance and advice. The Government have introduced over 90 specific measures to help new and existing small businesses, including perhaps the most successful, the loan guarantee scheme.

Mr. McGuire: rose—

Mr. Jenkin: Since its introduction in June 1981 the loan guarantee scheme has provided nearly 5,000

guarantees to small firms for bank loans totalling over £166 million, every penny of which must have meant the safeguarding or creation of jobs.
There is a new understanding by the banks, the City, local authorities and Government Departments of the significant role that small firms play in our economy. However, we need to do more to see that they know what help is available and what changes have been made in their favour.

Mr. McGuire: On the question of assistance—

Hon. Members: Give way.

Mr. Jenkin: I shall give way, as I am fond of the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. McGuire: I am grateful to the Secretary of State. Is he aware that in his office he has on file a request for assistance for a company named Hughes International which, if it receives that sensible assistance from the Government, which other Governments are giving to its competitors, will create 1,000 jobs in Skelmersdale, where there is one of the highest rates of male unemployment in the country? All that firm wants is a sensible appreciation by the Minister of the fact that the export credit guarantee system is too rigid at present. Jobs are being lost. There are people on the dole who could be working.

Mr. Jenkin: I have listened carefully to the hon. Gentleman. I know thoroughly the position in Skelmersdale. That request is not on my files but on the files of the Department of Trade, but as the hon. Gentleman has raised the matter on the Floor of the House I shall look into it and see that he receives an early reply.
We want to see that small firms know what is available. Following the successful business opportunities programme last year, we are considering how best to spread the message to small firms and their advisers—the bankers, solicitors and accountants—up and down the country.

Mr. Michael Grylls: The loan guarantee scheme has been outstandingly successful. Does my right hon. Friend recognise that it has made the financing of small businesses as good as in any other industrialised country, which was not so before? Will my right hon. Friend extend the upper limit of the loan from the low level at which it started as a pilot scheme, of £75,000, to £250,000. This would bring in the medium-sized company, which still finds it difficult to raise money for expansion. Such firms could create many new jobs.

Mr. Jenkin: No one is more assiduous than my hon. Friend in pressing the interests of smaller businesses. I take careful note of what he has said. He will know that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State has been reviewing the operation of the loan guarantee scheme. A report has been made to the House. We shall consider the result of the review and determine how best to carry it forward in the future.
Our third purpose is to encourage innovation and new technology. That is crucial to future competitiveness. We need to spend more on investing in the future and less on supporting the casualties of the past. There can be no doubt about that. We have begun the task of moving the balance of industrial expenditure away from nationalised industries and the public sector and towards measures to help industry to innovate.
My hon. Friend the Minister for Industry and Information Technology has been tireless in his championing of schemes to support product and process research and development, microelectronics, robotics, flexible manufacturing systems, fibre-optics and optoelectronics, advanced office systems, computer software and biotechnology. Support has more than doubled in real terms since the Government came to office and that is a measure of our commitment to the advancement of innovation. Only recently I announced an increase in the level of grants under the Science and Technology Act and for innovation-linked schemes under section 8 of the Industry Act from 25 per cent. to 33⅓ per cent. That was much welcomed by the industries that use those grants. Our scheme to give a shot in the arm to small engineering firms—intended as a temporary boost—which need to invest in new, advanced equipment was an outstanding success, so much so that despite increasing the resources from £20 million to £30 million we had to close the list to applications much sooner than we had anticipated. In the event, the sum to be offered will be about £35 million, which is nearly twice the sum originally planned. I can reassure those who are concerned with these matters that that can be met by switching sums from other heads in my programme. I know that there was some disappointment that we had to halt the scheme. However, the effects of the small engineering firms investment scheme on machine tool and other industries will be felt for some years yet.
We have introduced many other measures to stimulate industry and encourage enterprise. The enterprise allowance scheme is just one. It is being piloted in several hard-pressed areas. I am glad that by 30 June 1982 almost 800 applicants for the enterprise allowance had been accepted and that 724 are now in business and receiving the allowance of £40 a week. Those new firms are spread across a wide spectrum of industry. The jibe that they are all window cleaners is untrue—there are fewer than one in 100. The favourite sectors are construction, distribution and services such as motor repairs and catering.
The Department's small firms service is heavily involved in the scheme, especially in the provision of management advice. I shall give just one example of the effect of the scheme. One of our counsellors, who is involved with the pilot area in North-East Lancashire, has reported that of 33 people whom he has advised, 27 have started in business. During the previous 12 months, before the pilot scheme operated in that area, only three out of 97 people whom he had advised had made a start in business. That shows that, although it is a pilot scheme, the results so far are encouraging. We shall review those results fully.
The experimental enterprise zones are intended to test how far commercial and industrial activity can be stimulated by easing tax burdens and cutting out bureaucracy. Early results in Swansea, Clydebank, Dudley and Corby are encouraging. There has been considerable promotion effort in those areas. The financial institutions are becoming involved. There is ample evidence that enterprise zones are stimulating economic activity and creating jobs which would not otherwise have resulted.
I was astonished that the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East attacked urban development corporations. I understand that he comes from Merseyside and knows the area well. Anyone who is aware of the tremendous improvement in the south docks of Liverpool, the general

environmental improvement, the industrial development and the creation of jobs can bear witness to the effectiveness of the Merseyside development corporation. Where is the evidence to suppose that local authorities in the area would have been able to achieve half as much? My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment set up the new urban development corporation there because they could not.
The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East rightly spent much time on regional industrial policy.

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the only real benefit of enterprise zones is rate relief? Does he agree that the Government could make a national concession in that regard and that it would have a significant impact on the economy?

Mr. Jenkin: The hon. Gentleman makes an interesting point. He cannot expect me to comment on it now. I do not agree that it is the only benefit of enterprise zones. There are others, such as substantially less bureaucracy, substantially simplified planning procedures and exemption from development land tax. It is never possible to isolate the effects of each. If he is suggesting that a high rate burden on business is a disincentive, many of my hon. Friends would agree passionately.
The Government are as committed as anyone to help, by encouraging industrial and other development, areas that have intractable problems of structural unemployment. We aim, as did the Labour Government, to reduce economic imbalances between different parts of the country. The issue between us is how that may best be done.
Regional policies have been with us for half a century. In the 1930s the decline of traditional industries led the Government of the day to adopt measures that were designed to attract new industry to develop in the old industrial areas. In the 1960s, the emphasis moved from merely unemployment to other factors such as population changes, migration, communications and remoteness. Regional policy is based on travel-to-work areas. They have been used by all Governments because they are relatively self-contained labour markets and the smallest geographical areas for which reliable unemployment figures can be provided.
The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East referred to small pockets of high unemployment. It is impossible to devise a regional policy that can be selective in that way. By 1979, assisted areas covered nearly half of the country. Differentials were so narrow that the drawing power of the incentives was gravely weakened. Regional policy had become an instrument for massive subsidies at the taxpayers' expense. One must always measure the jobs that are lost against the expense to those who must pay the taxes to finance the schemes.

Mr. Beaumont-Dark: Does my right hon. Friend agree that one of the problems of regional policy is not so much that it has created new jobs but that it has taken jobs from established areas at huge cost without creating wealth? It has been an illusion—rather like a rabbit coming out of a hat—rather than a creation of real prosperity.

Mr. Jenkin: As I said in my statement, it is notoriously difficult to measure the effects of regional policy.


Nevertheless, there is evidence that unemployment and the creation of new employment has responded to it. The loss of jobs elsewhere is dependent upon the general movement in the economy.
The huge spread of funds narrowed the differentials. Industrial development control was hampering decisions and preventing necessary development. In 1979, therefore, regional policy was a mess. The Government have done three things. We have reduced, and are continuing to reduce, the coverage of regional industrial help to the areas that are in greatest need. We have widened the differentials and we have suspended industrial development control. The effect of this has been masked by the quadrupling of unemployment since the mid-1970s. It is difficult to measure the impact of individual measures. Nevertheless, in spite of the detailed figures that the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East produced, the proportionate rise in unemployment in assisted areas has been less than that in the rest of the country, although the absolute figures are higher. That is some evidence that regional measures are having some effect.
When my right hon. Friend the then Secretary of State for Industry announced his policy in June 1979, he said that there must be time for people to adjust. He undertook to listen to the evidence, especially from those areas that were losing assisted area status. He said:
unless we have greatly misjudged the circumstances, I would be wrong to hold out hope of correction in the proposals announced."—[Official Report, 24 July 1979; Vol. 971, c. 364.]
Nevertheless, we were convinced that there were some areas in which the relative deterioration in employment—relative, that is, to the country as a whole—called for adjustment. I shall not weary the House by repeating all the changes that I announced in my statement two weeks ago.
I knew that we would be criticised whatever we did. Contrary to what appeared in some West Midlands papers, the great mass of industry in the West Midlands was greatly relieved that we did not opt for a massive extension of the development areas. The problems of the West Midlands are essentially those of competitiveness, not those of remoteness or the lack of a proper industrial base. Many industries in the West Midlands are making heroic efforts to regain markets that have been lost to their competitors. They would not be helped if they were within assisted areas.
We gave a commitment to maintain stability in regional industrial policy until the end of this Parliament. If we now start chopping and changing on a major scale, the credibility of regional incentives will vanish. Of course we have not abandoned regional policy. Regional measures are costing £800 million this year, so it scarcely lies in the mouths of Labour Members to talk of the Government having abandoned the regions.
The hon. Gentleman asked about Nissan. One of the most effective ways of using regional assistance is for inward investment. Over the years, this country has had a marked success in attracting investment—and with it jobs, technology and the rest—from overseas. After Canada, this country has the largest volume of American investment overseas and 60 per cent. of Japanese investment in Europe has come to this country. There are major investments by overseas industrial companies in all parts of the country and they make a notable contribution.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: What about British investment?

Mr. Jenkin: Representatives of the Nissan company will be visiting Britain later this month and discussions are continuing about the project. It will be for the company to decide, in the light of its own assessment, whether to go ahead with the project and, if so, on what scale and in what location. It would not be helpful if the House sought to press the Government to disclose details of the discussions at this stage. By any standards, this will be a most important investment project for Britain. The Government made it abundantly clear to the company that we would welcome such a major investment in a car-making facility in Britain.
We now have an economic, industrial and regional policy that is beginning to work to produce a genuinely efficient and competitive economy. That is the only basis from which industry can expand.
There is welcome news, too, on production. Yesterday's figures show that industrial production was up in May and that, in the three months to May, manufacturing output rose by 1½ per cent. The underlying level of output is expected by most forecasters to rise in the second half of this year.
There is a new and welcome sense of economic realism right across the country—except in the Labour Party, which now poses the greatest threat to the sustained recovery of British industry. Labour Weekly has published the facts. It is vital that the country should be made aware of what the Labour Party wishes to do.
I suspect that the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East does not accept all the proposals put forward by the Labour Party. Indeed, it would be interesting to know whether the right hon. Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme) supports all that Labour Weekly puts forward as he has had experience in the Department and knows a thing or two about these matters.
We are told that there are a number of key elements in Labour's programme. A massive increase in public borrowing lies at the heart of it. Either this will trigger off a new wave of inflation, or it will starve private industry of funds for investment and jobs. Probably it will do both. The Labour Party also claims that it wants a clamp-down on prices while allowing wages to rise without limit. That is a
prescription for bankruptcies, closures and unemployment".
Those are not my words. They are the words of that realistic trade union leader Mr. Sid Weighell.
The Labour Party has acknowledged that its programme would involve a massive devaluation of the pound. The Guardian said of the Labour Party's economic proposals:
Confidence in sterling could be sapped so quickly that the pound would drop like a stone. With so much sterling held by foreigners, exchange controls would be of limited value".
The Labour Party further proposes that Labour Ministers and Whitehall civil servants should step in and tell companies how and from whom they should buy their supplies and when and how much they should invest. If the companies refused to obey, control would be taken out of the hands of the directors and placed in the hands of a new State commissar, the Official Trustee.

Mr. Prescott: That is what the Government are doing in the North Sea.

Mr. Jenkin: The Labour Party would not stop there. It proposes the State takeover of our most successful


companies. Moreover, this would be done not by an Act of Parliament in each case but by statutory instrument, thus suppressing all the processes of primary legislation. That is perhaps as disturbing a suggestion as any for our democratic parliamentary procedures. Is the Labour Party really prepared to nationalise companies by statutory instrument? I hope that the right hon. Member for Salford, West will give a clear answer on that when he winds up the debate.
The Labour Party then proposes to make industry more democratic for the workers. At least, that is how it is described, but the small print makes it clear that the proposal is to hand over power not to the workers but to the trade unions. The ASLEF dispute is scarcely the best propaganda either for more nationalisation or for more trade union power.
Economic reality is scarcely allowed to intrude into the Labour Party proposals. There is no mention of inflation or competitiveness, of the right goods at the right price, of the need to keep costs down or the need for profits to keep people in jobs and to create new investment and new jobs for the future. British industry must be clear about what the Labour Party is offering.
The whole thrust of the Government's industrial policy is to lay firm foundations for sustained and sustainable growth in British industry. That is being achieved by cutting inflation, by industry becoming more competitive, by increasing productivity, by removing obstacles, by encouraging the growth of small firms, by regional policy, by supporting innovation and by encouraging the industries of the future.
I urge the House to support the Government amendment because it is the only way forward.

Mr. Tom Clarke: I am delighted to have caught your eye, Mr. Speaker, so early in my time in the House. I invite the tolerance and the forbearance of hon. Members during my maiden speech, in what I accept—and I am sure we all accept—is one of the most crucial debates of this parliamentary Session.
I am sure that I speak for the whole House when I pay tribute to my immediate predecessor, the late James Dempsey. Jimmy Dempsey had many qualities, but principal among them were common sense, dedication and kindness. Those qualities will never be forgotten in Coatbridge and Airdrie. I know from my short time in the House that the affection for Jimmy Dempsey is widely shared not only among hon. Members, but among members of the staff, including the police. His courage will, I think, inspire us all for many years to come.
I should like to say a few words about my constituency. I must say that there were times during the recent election campaign when I did not exactly appreciate or even understand some of the descriptions that I read. Indeed, I did not always appreciate or understand some of the descriptions of myself.
I do not complain, though, about what was said about my local outdated sewage plant. I say to the leaders of the other parties that if their candidates fail to turn up again in my constituency at the next election we should not be too hard on them. It would probably have a great deal more to do with the smell from the sewage works than the prospect of yet another lost deposit.
I also assure Mr. Keith Raffan of the Daily Express —who seems to have a nose for these matters—and,

perhaps more important, my constituents, that a solution to the problem is extremely important. If we had received a fairer share of regional aid in the past we might, as local authorities, have been able to deal with it more speedily.
For example, the Scottish Office graciously conceded £45 million, or 20 per cent. of the Scottish share of regional aid. Even a fraction of that could have helped my constituency to deal with those and some of our many other problems.
Coatbridge and Airdrie has a proud industrial heritage going back to the Airdrie weavers and the Coatbridge colliers in the eighteenth century, to the halcyon days of the "Iron Burgh" of Coatbridge which exported all over the world. In recent years, we have perhaps become famous as the bowling capital of the world. Our indoor bowling stadium has been used for the annual bowling world championships. That stadium is an example of improving the environment for our people, while its construction provided jobs.
I had fully intended to mention Monklands district hospital. However, it might be more appropriate for my hon. Friend the Member for Berwick and East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) to do that in his capacity as a consumer. We are proud of that hospital. I stands as a constant tribute to the Administration headed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan).
I shall not dwell, much as I am tempted, on our industrial, social and cultural past. For example, I am tempted to mention the Boots factory in Airdrie which produces cosmetics and toothbrushes—to be used at a time convenient to those who buy them. However, in view of the industrial and economic deterioration in my constituency and elsewhere in Scotland I am compelled to contrast our great industrial past with the gloom and despair that has descended upon my constituency and the rest of Scotland.
In these debates we quite properly hear statistics, but we must never forget that these problems involve families and individuals, and are about dashed hopes and broken dreams.
The two jobcentres in Airdrie and Coatbridge deal entirely with that area and to some extent some of the villages in the constituencies of my hon. Friend the Member for Bothwell (Mr. Hamilton) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Lanarkshire, North (Mr. Smith). In that area 22·9 per cent. of all eligible workers are unemployed. In Airdrie the male register of unemployed stands at a staggering g 31·5 per cent. On 10 June 10,285 people had registered for jobs. There were exactly 218 unfilled vacancies.
For young people the scene is even bleaker. On the same day 1,534 youths had registered for work. There were no notified vacancies. The situation has not changed in the past few weeks. The Bannermans shirt factory in Airdrie, which was doing extremely well in selling its products and finding new markets, employs 250 people. Suddenly it has found the official receiver on the doorstep. Tomorrow those employees will be receiving redundancy notices. I fully realise that it had the misfortune to be part of a group that was not as progressive as Bennermans itself.
The Scottish Development Agency and everyone involved in trying to rescue the firm should be given all possible support by the Government and by the Secretary of State for Industry. Not only do those employees have


the right to work and to continue to sell, but it would be a tragedy for industry and the employees if the company went to the wall and its markets were taken over, as seems inevitable, by our overseas competitors.
Three weeks ago Strathclyde regional council advertised for 31 apprentices. It received 3,585 written applications. I cannot possibly condone any suggestion that those young people should take to the streets or show public rebellion and disorder against the Government's policies. However, it is naive in the extreme to offer those young people the prospect of being history's forgotten generation and not to expect repercussions from them.
There is nothing new in what I have said. We have been warned in the past. In his book "Full Employment in a Free Society", written in 1944, Sir William Beveridge made that point. It is appropriate when, over the past few weeks, we have heard a number of references to the end of a war elsewhere. Sir William said:
Full employment is something that the British democracy should direct its Government to secure at all costs, save the surrender of essential liberties. Who can doubt that full employment is worth winning at any cost less than surrender of those liberties. If full employment is not won and kept, no liberties are secure, for to many they will not seem worthwhile.
Our young people, especially, respond to those words. It is despairing in the extreme to say, as a society, that there is no alternative. Of course there is. There are the alternatives that have been discussed even in today's debate. There must be a clear commitment to increasing investment in the private and public sectors, aimed at providing essential jobs. The construction industry has appealed for more public works and more homes, for motorways and for sewers. The Government should respond to that appeal.
Local government should have the right to reassert itself. It can thus make a major contribution to job creation and to job opportunities.
The Secretary of State mentioned rates and their impact on jobs. When I served as president of the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities I had the privilege to lead the negotiations on finance with three successive Secretaries of State of different political persuasions. I say in all candour that rate increases reflected far more central Government's decisions on rate support grant than the influence of any one local authority.
We ought to build more hospitals for all our people, not forgetting our handicapped and geriatric friends. In so doing, we are entitled to look at the equipment that is used. Where we can do so, we should encourage hospital boards to buy British equipment. I am sure that that should be done, because of the employment implications.
The resources available for an attempt to secure full employment include our great natural indigenous resources such as coal, oil and steel. Lanarkshire Members like myself are particularly concerned about the future of Ravenscraig and Gartcosh. I hope that before the end of the debate we shall be assured by a ministerial statement that those who have given their lives to the steel industry in Lanarkshire will be able to feel that they and their families have a future and that Ravenscraig and Gartcosh will be saved.
Our finest industrial and regional development asset is our people; our success depends on society making the best possible use of our people. That is why our education

system should be geared to the industrial challenge that lies beyond school, college and university. I am not absolutely certain that that is the case today.
I have the privilege of representing a constituency which in the eighteenth century exported iron and equipment for railway construction in Russia and America and which has never been insular or introspective. It is a constituency that has always been concerned about the wider problems of the world. Our concern now is that, as the Brandt report indicated, we live in a world where 9 million children die of hunger each year, yet in my region, men, mills and machinery are standing idle.
We believe that world poverty offers a greater challenge to peace than any other consideration. We are convinced that by reinvigorating all our regions we can change Britain's industrial pattern and make a contribution towards solving the problems of an increasingly disenchanted world.

Mr. Peter Hordern: The hon. Member for Coatbridge and Aidrie (Mr. Clarke) delighted the House with his warm and witty speech. He spoke first of his predecessor, whom all of us well remember, sitting in his corner seat just below the Gangway. He was a warm and gentle man whom everyone in the House counted as his friend.
The hon. Gentleman spoke with obvious and detailed knowledge of his constituency. Not everyone knows as intimately as he does the exact location of the local sewage works. It is perhaps possible that the hon. Gentleman has more reason for doing so than some of us. He also spoke with deep knowledge of the industry in his constituency, his constituency's history and the state of employment in the area.
It is not for nothing that the hon. Gentleman is known as the burgomaster of Coatbridge, such is his intimate knowledge of his constituency. He also spoke with obvious knowledge about poverty, the works of Beveridge, education and the evil effects of unemployment. The House will welcome the hon. Gentleman speaking again on these subjects, but it should not surprise him if on other occasions he finds it more difficult to entertain us.
I should like to follow the hon. Gentleman's remark about our assets, in particular our possession of coal and oil. It is a paradox that our possession of oil has created considerable difficulties. The impact of that oil has been felt sharply in the past three or four years. It has meant that we have not imported anything like the same quantity of crude oil. It has also meant that the price of our exports has been higher than it would otherwise have been. The consequence has been visited severely on employment, especially in our industrial areas.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made that point in an excellent speech. He also dealt fairly with the Labour Party's proposals. It is extraordinary that anyone should talk about the economic policies of the new Cambridge school as though they should be followed, but I suppose that the Labour Party must try to claim some academic distinction for its policies.
If the Labour Party's policies were followed, there would literally be no floor for sterling. One need only look at the experience of France to see what would happen. The French have greater reserves and a lower public expenditure as a proportion of GNP than we have, but


within a few short months they have had to give up their dash for growth. They are now suffering from high interest rates, a six-month prices and incomes freeze and all the difficulties that occurred in 1964 under the Government of the right hon. Member for Huyton (Sir H. Wilson) when they tried to pursue similar policies. Exactly the same would happen again.
As my right hon. Friend said, there are some encouraging signs. Notable among these is the fact that wage costs per unit of output are now even lower than at the beginning of the year. If world trade recovers, as everyone hopes, we shall be much more competitive than for a long time past. I have no doubt that we shall recapture a larger share of world trade because of our more competitive position. However, I wish there were a sign that world trade would recover soon or that there was the natural increase in demand that we should all like to see.
My right hon. Friend also mentioned British Telecom and the involvement of his Department with the corporation in the frontiers of science. That I commend, but we would advance investment in British Telecom more if it were denationalised. It could then stand the test of the market and would not depend upon the Treasury for borrowing from the PSBR. There is no escape from that. British Telecom will either expand because it stands the test of the market, or my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will have to judge whether money should be advanced. I have no doubt that British Telecom should stand the test of the market so that the market can judge how far investment should proceed, and it could proceed far.
With all these encouraging signs, there are nevertheless serious difficulties, which no hon. Member can doubt. I refer to the high levels of unemployment not only in the North-West, the North-East, in Scotland and in Wales but increasingly in places where it was unheard of before, such as the South-East, where unemployment is growing rapidly. The clouds are not so dark in the South-East as they are in other parts of the country. However, because of the part that oil plays in our economy and the fact that we no longer have to export so much to command the same price for our currency, the effect on our manufacturing industry has been very striking.
In 1965 manufacturing industry employed 8·4 million. The number has now declined to 5·7 million. Those who represent constituencies in the West Midlands will know the position much better than I do but, in 1965 unemployment in the West Midlands was below 1 per cent. Today it is over 14 per cent. in what was once, and still is, the heartland of manufacturing industry.
It is true that a large sector of this population has moved into service industries, and the public sector in particular. This movement puts a greater strain on productive industry than it used, because public service industries have to be provided for by the private sector. It is not only in the West Midlands. In places such as Northern Ireland the problems are severe. About 20 per cent. of workers in Northern Ireland are unemployed, which obscures the fact that nearly one-quarter of men in Northern Ireland are out of work. It is not as though Northern Ireland is such an exception. In Wales and the North, unemployment is over 15 per cent., and in the West Midlands 14½ per cent.
I can give more detailed figures for Northern Ireland. In Belfast 17 per cent. are out of work and in Cookstown, Dungannon, Newry and Strabane one-third of the working population is out of work, and if we take men alone it is

over 40 per cent. We have to look closely at our regional and industrial policies to be sure that they are the most appropriate for the conditions of employment.
Whatever the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) may have said and thought about regional policies under the Labour Administration, he has to remember that a serious review carried out by Professor Marquand in his Department was able to establish only that it was difficult to see whether any impact had occurred because of regional policies carried out under the last Administration. I do not think that the present regional policies that are, as my right hon. Friend explained, better than our predecessors' are necessarily alone those that will generate further employment. We therefore have to look at other practices and strategic blocks on progress in our economy and industry.
I am not talking about trade union restrictive practices, about which we have heard a great deal. I am talking about other practices, that have gone on for a long time, in particular practices such as those of the wages councils. I do not dispute that the wages councils do good work, but is it any longer appropriate that a system of wages councils, which was in many cases started before the first World War, can now be considered appropriate when unemployment and supplementary benefits exist where they did not before?
As it is, about 3 million workers are employed in wages councils and determine wages and conditions of work for many people. They determine what an employee in a tobacconist shop in Horsham may get as being the same wage as somebody who works in Tesco. The result can only be that many apprentices and young people are not offered the chance to work. Therefore, why do we not scrap them? It appears that we are bound by the International Labour Organisation convention of 1928, but we may denounce ratification in June 1985 and go our own way, just as the Americans have always done.
We should not continue to be bound by a convention which causes such heartbreak to the people it is designed to protect. If it is decided that we cannot immediately scrap the wages councils, we must change them. There are at least five wages councils which award young workers of school-leaving age a minimum rate of pay in excess of £40 a week. In West Germany, the country with the lowest ratio of youth to adult unemployment of all the OECD countries, the average pay for vocational trainees is equal to 20 per cent. to 40 per cent. of the initial wages of the skilled workers. In Britain, the minimum rate of pay in a typical four-year apprenticeship is about 70 per cent. of the adult minimum wage in engineering and nearly 75 per cent. in the construction industry.
For that reason among others, the number of apprentices fell by one-third in Britain between 1970 and 1980. Not only are there about twice as many qualified craftsmen in the German work force as compared with the British work force, but twice as many are now being produced. All of us hope that the new youth training scheme, for which the Government deserve every credit, will transform our record in vocational training, which is at present, and has been for many years, virtually the worst in the EEC.
That is for the future, but what of the present? There are already powerful incentives in tax reliefs, rate reliefs and investment allowances, which, as my right hon. Friend said, are among the best in Europe. However generous, they are not achieving their purpose, which is


to restore full employment. In America there are foreign trade zones, which exempt imports from customs duties until they are moved to other parts of the United States. Is it not time to try such an experiment in some part of the country to see whether it works? What more suitable place to try than in Northern Ireland?
Payments of mainstream corporation tax by companies operating solely in Northern Ireland are estimated to be running between £35 million and £40 million a year. What would happen if corporation tax were abolished for all such companies in Northern Ireland? Companies might change their structure to take advantage of the new position, and more revenue might be lost, but what would undoubtedly happen is that many more companies would be formed, stimulated by the prospect of earning much more money, which they would be allowed to keep. This process would transform Northern Ireland into a corporate tax haven, generating many more jobs and reducing the strain of unemployment and supplementary benefit. I have concentrated rather on the particular problems of Northern Ireland because they are the worst in the United Kingdom, but they are not unique.
Of all the damaging effects of inflation, perhaps the worst is the high price of land and property which stands in the books of our public authorities. In the life of an ordinary person or a company, spending more money than one receives means selling assets, but not so in the public sector. There they sit, our local and statutory authorities, borrowing money to hold land they cannot use now, or in the foreseeable future. It is a shameful misuse of banks', taxpayers' and ratepayers' money, which impoverishes us all. These public authorities are behaving like elderly spinsters counting their pearls, while we pay their bills.
The 360 local authorities in England have now reported that they own 87,280 acres of land, all of the plots being over one acre, which could be developed, and which are not. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment has the power to order local authorities to sell their land, and he should use it. To argue, as some authorities do, that the market cannot support such sales is to substitute their judgment for that of the market, and to do so at our expense. When we consider that that judgment is preventing the sale of land that could be developed and used for production and employment without delay, we realise that it is a highly offensive judgment. The money gained from such sales by local authorities should be used to repay their bank debts that amount to about £10,000 million.
The same paralysis of thinking about assets siezes the minds of those who run our nationalised industries and health authorities. Unused or underused assets—and I refer only to those—tie up vast sums that ought to be used for the production of goods and services and would be so used if they were released. We should remember that those who provide the wealth of our country do so, for the most part, from the private sector. They not only provide the cash for a vast body of public servants, but find that their own access to the cash is blocked, to some extent, because it is financing unused assets in the public sector. When will we be allowed to make the best use of our potential?
We read so much about trade union restrictive practices, which are damaging enough, but it seems to me that the greatest restrictive practice is that which excludes

the profitable use of national assets at the right price, which is their present market value. It is time that we put all our national assets to work.

Mr. William Rodgers: I join the hon. Member for Horsham and Crawley (Mr. Hordern) in paying tribute to the hon. Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie (Mr. Clarke) who made such a fluent and confident maiden speech. I found it difficult to disagree with anything that the hon. Gentleman said, and I greatly enjoyed his graphic description of his constituency.
The hon. Gentleman referred to his constituency as the bowling capital of the world. He certainly quickly bowled himself into the sympathies of the House and made what many of us regard as one of the best maiden speeches for a long time. One of the special qualities of the hon. Gentleman's speech was that it was relevant to the debate. Many of us will remember that that was not a characteristic which we were always able to combine with what we wanted to say in our maiden speeches.
The hon. Gentleman's description of the problem in his constituency and his reference to families' dashed hopes and broken dreams summed up vividly the subject of the debate. Although the title is the
Government's Regional and Industrial Policies
we are actually debating unemployment—and rightly so.
Unemployment is the largest single issue for Britain and for the House, and it should be the largest single issue for the Government, whether we are discussing the economic consequences in terms of wasted resources, or the social consequences in terms of personal failure and disappointment. The hon. Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie was right to refer to William Beveridge and full employment in a free society. Those two ideas have been linked in our minds over many years and are coming back vividly today.
We recognise that international and other factors make it difficult for any Government to promise to get rid of the vast burden of unemployment in a short time, but there is a danger that we may become complacent and think that unemployment is inevitable and inescapable. At one stage we began to live with inflation in double figures and did not believe that it could be otherwise, and there is a danger that we may begin to believe that we can live with three million unemployed without having to bother further. We have not yet reached that point, but we could do so.
Each of us has his prime concern among the various aspects of unemployment. History's forgotten generation of school leavers is one such aspect, but I am deeply worried about people over 50 who lose their jobs and have no prospect of ever working again. They are the saddest men and women of all. We are living longer and those people have longer to live with nothing to do, with all the consequences for their self-respect, their families and the sort of home life that they ought to have the right to enjoy.
The other aspect that bothers me greatly is the number of long-term unemployed, which was not referred to by either Front Bench speaker. About 1 million men and women have not worked for a year. We may accept that people will have to be out of work for a while when changing jobs and we may recognise that that period has become longer, but a year is a very long time.
Another figure encapsulates the nature of our problem. More than 160,000 people have been out of work for three years. It is as if all the able-bodied men and women in


Bristol ceased to work three years ago and have not worked since. That is the depth of the problem that we face.
It may be argued that our problems are not wholly domestic. I agree with that, but unemployment in the big seven industrialised Western countries was 5 per cent. in 1979 when unemployment here was 5·7 per cent. Unemployment has risen to 7·4 per cent. in the big seven, but here it has risen to 12·4 per cent. and it is still rising. It is an international problem, but it is far worse in Britain, largely because of the Government's policies.
The Secretary of State put an optimistic gloss on the indicators that are pointing in the right direction, but even he was extremely cautious in quoting the most favourable statistics and he said, not once, not twice, but three times, that we have a long way to go. Indeed we do.
The hon. Member for Jarrow (Mr. Dixon) sought leave earlier to move the Adjournment of the House to discuss the desirability of placing the order for the new "Atlantic Conveyor" in this country. I share the hon. Gentleman's concern, as does most of the House. It is tragic that after the high investment in shipbuilding, the industry's decline—with acute consequences for the Clyde, the Tyne and other parts of Britain—and after three years of this Government, with their emphasis on competitiveness, either the British shipbuilding industry is not competitive enough or the Government are not prepared to intervene when other countries make competition unfair by giving subsidies to their shipbuilding industries.
Industrial profits have declined, with serious consequences for the country, fixed investment is 25 per cent. down from the modest peak of 1979 and there has been a decline in competitiveness. One set of figures demonstrates the situation vividly. Between 1971 and 1981, our exports of manufactured goods rose by 52 per cent. That may seem a good record, but the imports of such goods rose in the same period by 132 per cent. That is further evidence that we have been dangerously uncompetitive. If we want another measurement, we can look to the North of Britain where GDP per head fell by 8 per cent. between 1980 and 1982.
Against that background, both the Government and the Opposition have been looking for false remedies. The Government, with their monetary squeeze, deflationary fiscal policy and obsession with the public sector borrowing requirement, have been concerned more with selling bits of the public sector than with making the public sector do an efficient job. The story of Amersham International is a shameful one.
Nor should the main preoccupation of the chairmen of nationalised industries be to prepare parts of those industries for privatisation. I am in favour of efficiency. There is much to be said for an audit commission to ensure that monopolistic nationalised companies are efficient, but to change the frontiers between the public and private sectors in that way is a misdirection of energy.
For the most part, the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) made a good and thoughtful speech, but his party does not attach priority to the issues that matter most to him. He mentioned a plan for jobs and we must all welcome such plans from whatever source. But those who read "Labour's Programme 1982" will conclude that it is a plan for fewer jobs and perhaps none. The result of much of what is proposed in that document would be a siege economy tightly controlled from Whitehall by Ministers and civil servants who are

incompetent to make the necessary decisions. The plan would produce a vast centralised bureaucracy that would do nothing to solve our main economic and industrial problems. The only additional jobs that it would create would be in the central planning bureaucracy.
Our debate is not only about broad industrial development but about regional development. The vast apparatus of central planning and control would do nothing for the needs of the regions. Every hon. Member who has a constituency or a special interest in those regions that are far away from the South-East has demanded for many years that regions should have a larger say in their own affairs.
As a member of a Labour Government, I was privileged in 1964 to play a part in setting up the regional economic planning councils. They pointed in the right direction. My regret was not that they were allowed to decline, so that their abolition would become the natural step for a Government such as the present one, but that they were not developed into something much more effective in providing regions with more identity and a larger say in their affairs. I should have wished those nominated regional economic planning councils to turn into elected regional governments.

Mr. Barry Sheerman: Why did the right hon. Gentleman not do it then?

Mr. Rodgers: I expressed my view at the time and I regret that the regional planning councils did not move in that direction. I do not criticise any individual but, with hindsight for those who did not see the opportunity, and in retrospect for those of us who did, I say that elected regional government would have given important responsibilities back to those regions with the most acute problems of industrial decline and high unemployment.

Mr. Sheerman: Why does the right hon. Gentleman ignore the words of my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott)? He spoke about the Labour Party's commitment to a fresh examination of the relationship between democratic control and regional structures. His speech contained one of the most important and innovative ideas that we have heard for a long time.

Mr. Rodgers: The hon. Member for Huddersfield, East (Mr. Sheerman) could not have heard me when I paid tribute to much of what the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East said. Time prevents me from reading substantial chunks from "Labour's Programme 1982", the thrust of which goes against the grain of what the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East said, and which is against the idea of giving more power to the regions. Today many documents emanate from the Labour Party, including "Labour's Programme 1982", "Plan for Jobs", and the document to which the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East referred, which was published today. Many of those documents are contradictory and some are better than others, but their general thrust is towards a more corporate State with more public ownership, more central planning and control and, in the end, less say for the people who live in the regions who should be allowed to determine much of their own future.
I have paid so many tributes to the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East that he will become embarrassed, but I agree with what he said about the shortcomings of mobile, large-scale industry. We have all


been disappointed by firms that open branches and subsidiaries in our constituencies and then, once the climate changes, close them. That is not the road for the future. I hope that there will be much more emphasis on indigenous industrial schemes. We have something to learn from the experience of the British Steel Corporation in Corby. I hope that we can have cheaper loans through an industrial credit scheme. I could advance a detailed proposal if the House wished, which is contained in an excellent document entitled "Partnership for Prosperity". I shall make free copies available to all hon. Members.
In the regions we should put the emphasis on innovation and technologically-based industries. It is crazy that the growth in high technology and service industries is within 100 miles of London. That is the verdict on the attempts of successive Governments—I make no narrow party point—during 10, 20 and even 40 or more years since the special areas were set up. We have an immense task and much more power to the regions—with regional development corporations if that is the right way—will do much to remedy the position.
The Government must have an industrial strategy. Governments cannot fail to intervene, although they should do so with the market. Non-intervention was the policy of the Secretary of State's predecessor and although the Secretary of State is trying to do a delicate and unspoken U-turn, it is still the Government's philosophy that they are not prepared to intervene even if it means moving with the market. But if we cannot rely upon market forces, nor can we rely upon centralised planning and a massive extension of public ownership.
Industry is or should be the top priority for every Government if we are to get Britain back to work. But we shall get Britain back to work only if the Government seek a genuine partnership with industry. That is the route to a balanced approach and to achieving a prosperous Britain that would also be a caring society.

Mr. John H. Osborn: This is the first time that I have caught your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I welcome the fact that you are in the Chair. I pay tribute to the excellent maiden speech of the hon. Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie (Mr. Clarke), which proves that a route to the House of Commons can be through local government, especially if the hon. Member has distinguished himself.
There have been many debates on industry and on regional policy and development since I entered the House of Commons. We have just heard an interesting speech from the right hon. Member for Stockton (Mr. Rodgers). To intervene constructively is difficult. However, the next debate that I attend will be in the Assembly of the Council of Europe in September, when I shall refer to this matter.
My roots are in Sheffield and more than 40 years ago I began to work with new technologies, work study and process control. Fifteen years ago I saw a factory to which I referred in one of my early speeches being sold and taken over by another—the name of that factory was Osborn Precision Casting. About 30 years ago I, with some directors from my group of companies, pioneered a rationalisation scheme that resulted in a company called

Osborn Steels in Ecclesfield. I have seen that firm close in the past six months and the final closure of the work of some 25 years, and a lifetime, in industry.
Today I am worried about the thousands of people who look to me, and others, for leadership and jobs and I return to Sheffield with mixed feelings. That is what regional policy is about and this week I shall attend a meeting of the trustees of the founders and benefactors of the company with which I was associated to see how we can help those who have no job and who have no prospect of obtaining one for some time. I say that because it is said that Conservative Members do not care. I hope that Opposition Members realise that I have lived through an experience that has as it were, "burned my soul" and made it difficult even for me to think about the future. On the other hand, as I go round my city—or the Peak District of Derbyshire—in this fine weather, I find people walking and cycling, and the shops are still crowded. So perhaps there is another side to the scene of despair that I have outlined.
I cannot support the word "appalled" in the motion, but I deeply regret the increase in unemployment and I deeply regret, too, the decline in Great Britain's industrial base. I listened to the speech of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry, and I agree that inflation has been controlled and controlled without the impedimenta of bureaucracy. That makes the prices and incomes policy of four years ago a farce. There has been an increase in productivity. The wage costs per unit of output have decreased. Interest rates are coming down.
However, this summer, one or two other stark realities have come home to me. What I feared for 30 years as inevitable has materialised. As a young man, after the Second World War, I was worried that what has come home to roost in the 1980s could have descended on Sheffield, Great Britain and its basic industries in the 1950s. That is why, as a young manager and then as a director of a basic industry company, I was keen on overseas sales, overseas investment and overseas manufacture as essential components of rationalisation, reorganisation and modernisation—in my case, in Sheffield. Those policies, incidentally, have been resisted by the Opposition throughout my life.
Over the past 20 or 30 years there have been pressures in Britain—and, for that matter, in Western Europe—on the basic industries, of which management of ten, 20 and certainly 30 years ago was unaware. Let me give one example about which I have spoken in the House before. In 1964, I intended to set up a company in India, and I visited Jamshodpur and particularly Durgapore. I saw Davy United people, with the help of United Steels and other companies, training people to run a steel works in India, with cheap power, and of course, with the raw materials. In 1970, on an IPU visit, I visited the new steel works on the Orinoco. It had the ingredients for a steel industry. In 1953, and again two years ago, I saw the same in Australia. So there are economic changes that we must live up to and accept.
During the past three months Great Britain has faced the challenge of the Falklands crisis. The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) mentioned this. The Prime Minister faced the challenge with resolution. It stirred up patriotism and unity in the country. Perhaps it is disunity, promoted by various factors in our country and cities, that has caused some of our biggest troubles. The right hon. Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn)


has not made the Government's policy in the Falkland Islands easy. Nor did his followers in Sheffield and on the South Yorkshire county council. Those are the people whom the right hon. Member for Sheffield, Park (Mr. Mulley) and the hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Mr. Hooley) must hold responsible for their non-reselection as candidates.
Why do I say that? Local government in my city has not been easy for a Conservative Government to handle or encourage. My right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer wanted to have an enterprise zone in Sheffield, but the ideals of the city of Sheffield were so contrary to those of a Conservative Government that it was not possible. Thus, the agonies of the citizens increase.
This week I should be attending—I cannot do so, because of other commitments—an economic development advisory committee, run mainly by the Sheffield city council, but Members of Parliament are invited. Unemployment in Sheffield is 12·5 per cent. compared with the national figure of 12·4 per cent. In some areas it is as high as 16 per cent., which is an increase on last year's figure. The agenda will be urban development grants, the local campaign for assistance, and particularly the statement made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry, which was the theme of the speech of the hon. Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Duffy) on May 25. Hidden subsidies are dangerous, but if there is assistance, particularly on a European scale, it should be available in Britain, and assisted area status makes that much easier. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister, in winding up, will say a word about that. Then, too, there is the enterprise allowance scheme, which I should like to see in my city.
One thing that will not be on the agenda in South Yorkshire and my city is the steel strike that took place two years ago. It destroyed the resilience of the private sector, and posed a challenge to BSC, in spite of what was said in the annual report yesterday.
Redundancies have been announced, and in Sheffield there is obviously worry about the future of Phoenix 3. There must be rationalisation, but I shall come back to that matter later. I do not oppose Phoenix 3 if it provides future security for the steel industry.
Another item which will not appear on the agenda is the cost of transport. I could refer to the statement made earlier this afternoon, but the activities of Ray Buckton and, Sidney Weighell and the problems of reducing transport and rail costs, if not successfully accomplished, will ensure more unemployment in Sheffield. That, too, will not be on the agenda.
An article in The Economist last week reminded us that electricity is now manufactured from coal. In fact, 82 per cent. of our electricity comes from coal, instead of 68 per cent. two years ago. The NUM leader, Arthur Scargill—to judge from cartoons and from what he has said—will present a dilemma. Increasing miners' wages and increasing the cost of coal will guarantee more unemployment in the steel industry, which depends on electricity produced from coal-fired power stations. Those are the dilemmas that must be faced. France, shortly after the Macmillan programme, embarked on a nuclear energy programme. Fifty per cent. of its electrical energy will be nuclear by the middle of this decade.

Mr. Lawrence Cunliffe: Does the hon. Gentleman concede that British coal is still the cheapest in Western Europe, and that mining production, in the main, has risen constantly for half a decade? We are producing more tonnes per man shift than we have produced during the past five years. Does that not contradict what the hon. Gentleman says? Is it not imperative, as the Government recognised two years ago, that there is still a call for massive investment in the mining industry so that we can obtain the full fruits of production and thus further reduce the cost of coal?

Mr. Osborn: The costs here for those who run industry and depend on electricity are considerably higher than the electricity costs of their competitors. This is a problem that any Government would have had to face.
The hard facts are that, in Sheffield, steel and engineering orders have not come in during the past three or four months. I have had meetings with the chamber of commerce and with the Engineering Employers Federation. It may just be a low ebb, and orders could pick up. However, Sir Terence Beckett spoke to a Conservative committee yesterday, and it appears that the optimism in industry of six months ago has taken a slightly more depressing turn.
There are, of course, other problems. Reference has been made to the protectionism of the United States. I have pressed that issue in the United States and in the House. Anyone in Sheffield who exports to the United States must show his books for examination. Can the Minister assure me that anyone who exports steel to Britain is exposed to the same detailed examination that is demanded by the State Department of the United States of America?
The demand for steel will not double this decade. Therefore, I should like a world review of Canada's and America's problems and of the cost of production.
The import of manufactured goods into Britain should not increase but the danger is that it is increasing. The exports of manufactured goods is contracting, although this country has an advantage from oil exports. There are issues on which I have yet to question the Secretary of State for Trade.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry outlined many new technologies. Biotechnology and certain aspects of information technology have been considered by the Select Committee on Education, Science and Arts, of which I have been a member. Britain must not only have a lead in design and technology; production costs must also be competitive.
It must be borne in mind that whoever is in Government in Western countries is being challenged by an Opposition, whether it be a Social Democrat Government, as in the case of France and Germany, or even a Republican Party Government, as in Washington. Therefore, I welcome the fact that Britain's problems are also discussed in the European Parliament and in the Council of Europe. It can be seen from the OECD reports that unemployment in the OECD countries will approach 30 million—16·5 million from Western Europe.
At Usinor in France, I gather, the concern is so great that some of the workers set fire to their headquarters. Old industries in France also have their troubles. For a country that is not well endowed resources are another factor.

Mr. Sheerman: Did the hon. Gentleman refer to the setting fire to the premises with relish? During the travelogue that we have been listening to, that seems to be the one thing that he felt intensely about.

Mr. Osborn: That is an irrelevant remark. Who would relish the fact that certain headquarters have been set fire to? That is typical of the destructive statements that are all too frequently made.
The provision of food is all important, in view of the world-wide increase in population, as is dependence on the Middle East for energy. All those factors affect Western Europe and Britain.
The OECD reports on unemployment and such solutions as work sharing, reduction in the working week and acquisitions of new skills are positive approaches. They can increase the quality of life in Britain and in Europe. I hope that there will be a change, and I welcome the fact that the Government have given so much encouragement to small businesses and new industries, even in those areas that are struggling.

Mr. Nigel Spearing: The House must listen with concern to any hon. Member from Sheffield, with its industrial commitment, certainly to the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Osborn) who has been concerned with one of its firms.
I do not wish and have not the time to take up the hon. Gentleman's points in detail, although I would fault a great deal of his logic. I understand, for example, that 50 per cent. of electricity costs are for transmission. They are not necessarily only dependant on the cost of coal, and as has been pointed out, miners' wages are not the only factor in that cost anyway.
I am pleased and proud to be the first member of his party to congratulate my new hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie (Mr. Clarke). He made an outstanding speech because of his humanity.
We must remember that the Beveridge report, "Social Insurance and Allied Services", brought out in the middle of the war, appealed to the hopes and fears of men and women everywhere. It was a report about security and now all regions of Britain are facing insecurity. I cannot help feeling that the Government, and many hon. Members who support them, are dismantling the post-war concordat that was reached between the parties as a result of that conflict, of which the Beveridge report was one element. The Beveridge report and the Education Act 1944 came out under a Conservative Government. The Government are certainly dismantling local government, of which there has been some mention today.
As a Londoner, I intervene briefly to point out one or two matters concerning London's regional policy. I understand the position of other hon. Members and shall not take long.
First, London has lost a third of its manufacturing industry in the past few years. It has 344,000 unemployed. Conservative Members who travel in official cars to the airport might notice at the Chiswick roundabout that a modern factory is being demolished. That was built in the last 10 or 15 years and now it is being replaced by an office block. I question the free enterprise economics that make such a thing possible, and I hope that Conservative Members will do the same.
The hon. Member for Hallam mentioned the Sheffield enterprise zone. He may have been illogical, because the

main point of enterprise zones is the rate relief that they enjoy which cannot be replicated elsewhere. I do not think that they will be successful, but if they are I do not believe that they will provide a genuine solution. They are like a flush of blood to a sick patient's cheek—they are not fundamental.
While urban development corporations might be successful in certain parts of Liverpool because the conditions there may suit their methods of administration, I do not think that the one in London—perhaps the biggest feature of the Government's policy for London—is successful in the way that it was imagined it would be.
First, it takes over from local government and gives the Secretary of State considerable powers. It gives a planning board the powers of local authorities but without the requirement of proper meetings, minutes or, at the moment, good information services. Planning consents are no quicker than they were before, and I understand that that can be statistically illustrated. Planning delays are sometimes blamed on local authorities, but I suggest that they are often due to developers wanting too much cream rather than as a result of an awkward local authority.
My local chamber of commerce and the London chamber of commerce have said that the London Docklands development corporation is not very good at communicating. East London is an area of considerable unemployment. There are 14,000 unemployed in the London borough of Newham, 14,000 in the London borough of Tower Hamlets and 28,000 in the north docklands alone. Unemployment must be almost 35,000 or 40,000 in the area as a whole. However, the Secretary of State said that the urban development corporation would be dynamic and would attract industry just as the new towns did. That has not happened yet.
In East London there is considerable controversy about the corporation's work in relation to land and the building of private homes. However, I do not wish to go into the details or to overemphasise, in what is—I hope—a constructive contribution, the central factors in its establishment and operation. Nevertheless, if the Government are to have a successful regional policy for London they must pay attention to two factors. First, the GLC is planning a rapid transit system which could become part of a new deal for transport in London. Everyone wants that. Secondly, the royal docks cover an enormous area, equivalent in size to Hyde Park and Kensington Gardens put together, and they are now available for development.
This week, I sent a short memorandum—which I also made public—to the Secretary of State setting out the concept of a trading estate, with road, rail and water transport connections. As some hon. Members know, there has also been talk of an airstrip in the docks. That would not necessarily cost any money. If it was founded on all-party agreement there would not be the controversy of the past and the estate could outlast the London Docklands development corporation.
In this sorely tried area of London the Government have an opportunity to ensure that there is proper transport and that the administration of the royal docks goes well beyond the remit of the LDDC. In doing so, they could show the way towards developments in other sorely pressed parts of the country. It is clear that industrialists and the work force will be confident only if there is agreement in both local and central Government about the policy for those areas. The Government have not provided that and unless they


do so the regions that face such high unemployment will not get the social, human and physical infrastructure that is so necessary for their recovery.

Mr. Anthony Beaumont-Dark: We have had many debates on regional development. Indeed, I made my maiden speech in May 1979 in a debate on industrial policy and employment. I should like to make some of the same points again today, because they were true then and are true today.
However, I shall begin by quoting an extract from a speech that I made in the House on 20 June 1980. I said:
Since 1947 one good-hearted and woolly idealist after another has introduced one good and woolly idea after another in an attempt to get industry to go here, there and everywhere. [Official Report, 20 June 1980; Vol. 986, c. 2016.]
As a result of industrial development certificates and the regional policies followed by one Government after another, 77 firms moved into Birmingham after 1945, creating 9,500 jobs. However, Governments love to issue "holiday brochures" telling people how good things are in the North-West, Wales, Scotland and so on. As a result of those offers of gold, 337 firms moved out, costing Birmingham 114,000 jobs. The situation would not have been so bad if those jobs had been transplanted and if, like flowers, they had blossomed into more jobs. However, let us consider what happened to the firms that moved from Birmingham or that were asked to have production lines 200 miles long, just as British Leyland was asked to have. Very often those firms have not grown but withered. As I pointed out to the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) £3,730 million has been spent on regional aid. But to what effect?
The problem with politicians is that they think that they can create jobs. I heard it said this afternoon that people look to us to create jobs. However, all I would accept is that they look to us to create the environment in which industry can grow. Labour politicians, like many of us, are sometimes unable to learn from the past. There is one thing that will not restore prosperity. If the Labour Party wins the next general election, it intends to create a planning department with substantial new powers, but that will not do any more good than the economic planning councils did.
A national planning council that has more resources than any existing body will not do anything either. Indeed, I tremble even more at the thought of a national planning college for key planners, managers and trade union planners. However, I agree that that will create jobs; by Jove it will. It will create many more planners who will get in the way of those who make the money to pay for them. Therefore, the Labour Party's plan is just a busybody's charter.
However, there are things that Governments, including the present Government, can do. We need stable costs in the nationalised industries. The enormous increases in the electricity and gas charges, like the oil increase, were nearly disastrous. In addition, we must get rid of the restrictive practices in nationalised industries that cause such increases. I am sure that all hon. Members read The Guardian. It pointed out that more than £600 million of the money that British Rail was getting was going to feather-bedding restrictive practices. Such practices must go.

Mr. Donald Stewart: How does the hon. Gentleman account for the fact that when the British Gas Corporation had profits of £300 million the Government obliged it to raise its charges?

Mr. Beaumont-Dark: One reason for that was the competitive price of oil.
We also need stable rates. Rates that used to be a small burden on industry have once again become an almost catastrophic burden. Local authorities bear a heavy responsibility when they talk about creating prosperity by increasing rates so that they can spend the money on creating jobs that they destroyed in the first place.
In his next Budget, I hope that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will reconsider the national insurance surcharge because it needs again to be reduced. If we are to help industry, we must also look again at the short-time working subsidy. That scheme will end in September or October. Given the state of industry, I hope that that scheme, or something similar, will continue so that industry can carry on its delicate return to prosperity. The Department of the Environment's inner city area scheme is one of the most useful aspects of regional aid. Money does not have to be thrown at one area or another. We cannot buy industries and set them down in areas as if we were playing Monopoly. However, many of us represent the older cities and we can ensure that their inner city areas are attractive for those who live and work in them. Morey spent on that is money well spent and I hope that the scheme will be enlarged yet again.
I want to say two things on behalf of the motor industry upon which Birmingham, Coventry and the whole of the West Midlands depend. Hire purchase restrictions were imposed when the motor industry was too successful and taking labour and resources from elsewhere, and I hope that they can be reduced to the same as those applying to other goods—a 25 per cent. deposit with three years to pay. That would mean that 70,000 or 80,000 more cars would be built which would bring attendant prosperity to component manufacturers.
We should make sure that we compete fairly with people who import goods. I am not in favour of one restriction after another, but if we let people import goods we should be allowed, fairly, to export to them. Our Japanese friends do not compete honestly and fairly with the motor industry in this country. I should like to see many more Japanese cars stripped down so that one could make sure that all the numbered parts are correct. That is what many other countries do.
My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Osborn) talked about problems in the steel industry. Let us make sure that the imposts are right, because there is no sense in allowing people to destroy our industry by unfair competition. I am not asking the Government to give Birmingham or the West Midlands another £500 million and to build this, that or the other, but they should make sure that the imposts on our industry are no worse than they are in other countries. The nationalised industries, about which private industry can do nothing, should not be allowed to charge so much that private industry cannot compete.
Regional aid has cost the West Midlands and the rest of the country dear. It has not created new jobs. It has shifted them about like deck chairs on the "Titanic". We have to make sure that there is genuine free enterprise to


enable industry to grow. If industry is left alone, it will grow and prosper, usually in spite of Government intervention, not because of it.

Mr. Richard Wainwright: The Secretary of State for Industry tried for no less than 48 minutes to revive the spirits of the Government Benches. Judging from the speeches that we have heard so far, he did not succeed. I am not surprised. I have considerable sympathy for the Secretary of State because he is required to preside over an area that has been made a desert by his senior colleagues. He reaps the appalling harvest sown by the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I am surprised that a man of such spirit and decisiveness as the Secretary of State, is prepared to put up with it. It is an intolerable job, and not all the resourcefulness, determination and episcopal gravity that he possesses is capable of making up for the appalling economic background against which he is required to man the treadmill.
The Secretary of State tried to hoodwink the House by speaking rapidly towards the end of his speech and referring to the alleged surge in industrial output during May. He should have taken the precaution, that I am sure Members of all Opposition Parties have taken, to inquire of the Central Statistical Office what effect the spring holiday had had on the May figures, as it came at the end of that month. A seasonal adjustment is made of several days' production in the monthly figures in respect of a bank holiday. In Yorkshire we all take the Tuesday, including Members of Parliament. The Central Statistical Office said that in view of the unusually late bank holiday Monday the May figures are useless unless they are taken with the June figures. That was an unfortunate claim by the Secretary of State.
It was odd that, having been a member of the National Economic Development Council since September 1981, the Secretary of State made only one passing and hurried reference to a powerful report that the NEDC has just issued. It categorically denied the Government's central article of faith, that economic recovery will be spontaneous once certain economic intermediates have been brought into a miraculous conjunction. The Secretary of State denied that. It suggested that the NEDC should be instructed to carry out a survey of methods of reflation and the extent to which they could be safely embarked upon. I and my colleagues believe that we need an engine of recovery. Recovery will not take off like a balloon when specific economic factors enter a certain conjunction. I protest at the Government's extraordinary shibboleth that the public sector is to be either dismantled or put into the doghouse and shunned.
Surely the Government can see—I have some evidence of this from friends of theirs—that most of the public sector provides essential orders for the private sector. The National Coal Board does not make its own equipment, the National Health Service does not manufacture operating tables and sterilisers and so on. Recovery can be partly got off the ground by a timely and selective expansion of some of our public services based on value for money. That was plainly shown by the report of the House of Lords Select Committee on unemployment. Conservative, Labour,

Social Democrat, Liberal and independent Members of the other place were unanimous in urging that kind of anti-unemployment scheme upon the Government.
It is appalling that the Government should have reduced our manufacturing capacity so that it cannot take up the available spending power and so that there is a surge of imports, as in the last three months, whenever a little more money is spent. Until the Government allow British industry to provide for our needs they will have a great deal to answer for.
I shall give one example. In my constituency employers, employees and the local community did the right thing according to the Government's book. Employers in an engineering firm decided to branch out into producing coal-face mining equipment for the National Coal Board. The employees came from three mills in the small township of Marsden where they had been employed none for fewer than 15 years, in wool textile weaving. They realised that their jobs were about to be lost—and that is another story. They accepted a completely different type of work—welding by a new process. Great ingenuity was displayed by all. They were filled by a spirit of enterprise and within five weeks the weavers, all in middle age, were turned into welders. The firm secured some good orders from the NCB and four years ago the project seemed to be going well.
Because of Treasury restraints on the NCB and the Government's prejudice against any public ownership, that admirable enterprise had to close and the mill is once again a vacant sepulchre. There are many examples in the public sector of how a little more understanding and less prejudice would help private industry to revive and provide more employment.
I can be brief about the regional aspects of the debate. My right hon. and hon. Friends believe that the only way to provide the regions with real and lasting help is to take their wishes into account. That is impossible at present because the regions have no means of giving full expression to their wishes. If only the regions had had a proper say in the appalling white elephants which Governments of both parties have inflicted on them we should not have experienced the false priority of the Humber bridge, for example. If the regions had had a say we should not have experienced the de Lorean disaster or that absurd and ugly white elephant the Kielder dam in Northumberland to provide water which is not needed until the middle of the twenty-first century. Regions can flourish only if they are given a voice.

Mr. Neville Trotter: I should have thought that nobody would be stronger in pressing the case for regional and local white elephants than the members of the regional bodies to which the hon. Gentleman refers.

Mr. Wainwright: I hope that I made it clear that the bodies that I propose would be directly and regularly responsible to the electorate. The trouble with our centralised system of government is that although we all tut-tut about disasters such as de Lorean, because they are dispersed throughout the United Kingdom they are not brought home properly to any unit of Government. There may be a shudder in the higher ranks of a Government Department until everyone has forgotten the scandal, but no losing of political office or electoral disaster results from such blunders, as they would if we had democratic regional government.
I remind the Government what their appointees have said about their policies. The Department of Industry is required by the Industry Act 1972 to lay an annual report before the House. The annual report for 1981 contains statements from each of the industrial development boards. The Northern industrial development board states:
The chemicals sector suffered a large fall in output … in common with those by other industries … as a result of the high value of the £ sterling and the relatively high prices of feedstocks and energy. In many instances imports replaced domestic production … The resulting lower domestic outputs were less able to absorb the costs of overheads and thus added to the difficulties occasioned by the high exchange rate".
That does not tie up with the boast that industry is becoming fitter and leaner. Industry is becoming starved and emaciated and unable to carry its overheads.
The Yorkshire and Humberside industrial development board reported:
The year under review has seen industry in Yorkshire and Humberside contending with a progressively deepening recession of a severity not experienced since the inter-war years. High interest rates, the strength of sterling and rising fuel costs were among major factors which contributed to squeeze company profits and liquidity. Faced with these very difficult conditions many companies were forced to cut back their production … and this was reflected in a rising toll of … plant closures and short-time working.
The CBI director for the Yorkshire region said only at the end of last week that so far as he could tell industry in the area was as "dormant as a dodo".
The East Midlands industrial development board reported:
Those industries dependent on public sector contracts such as aerospace, telecommunications, electronics and mining equipment are showing increasing problems with the cut-back in public expenditure.
The North West of England industrial development board included the following in its long and dreary report:
In the past year imports have extended their market penetration with the higher pound sterling.
In none of the reports is there any paean for the Government's policy or any of the gratitude which apparently is showered on the Secretary of State whenever he makes his royal progress.

Mr. A. J. Beith: Has my hon. Friend noticed that no Minister from the Department of Industry is on the Front Bench to hear our views?

Mr. Wainwright: I have noticed that. Since the Secretary of State regaled us for no less than 48 minutes it is a little hard that he is not here to hear our comments, even if he does not relish them.
On regional and industrial policy the Department of Industry is crippled and shackled by the Government's perverse economic policies. Until the policies are reversed and constructive measures put in their place there is no hope for our unemployed or for those responsible for industry.

Mr. Lawrence Cunliffe: I shall confine my remarks to the distressed North-West region. That region, with its great industrial history and its magnificent wealth of aptitude, experience and expertise, going back to the Industrial Revolution and progressing through most of this century, has experienced a tremendous upheaval in its industrial base.
Conservative Members must not delude themselves. The Secretary of State said today that prosperity was on

the horizon; a new spirit was within industry and the Government's economic policies were at last succeeding. But what has happened in my region? I do not like entering into statistical slug-outs about numbers, but the scale of unemployment reflects the fact that Government policies in the main have failed abysmally. A Government who have pursued such suicidal economic policies over the past three years with their basis in an obsessive adherence to monetarism, which has resulted in the highest interest rates for industry and commerce in the past two decades, cannot say that unemployment and job insecurity can be used as psychological weapons to hold down workers' earnings. It is nonsense for Ministers to suggest that.
Parliamentary representatives of the North-West region went to see the Secretary of State's predecessor in August 1979 when he introduced proposals for downgrading 80 per cent. of the North-West area. He said that it was an honour and a privilege for an area to be downgraded and that there was hope in such a downgrading. He was suggesting that viability and stronger competitiveness would arise in the region through Government policies. I have heard the old saying that if one lives in hope one dies in despair. There is now a great deal of frustration and hopelessness among the region's unemployed.
The North-West has the second highest number of unemployed of all the regions, with the exception of the South-East and Greater London. There are 441,000 unemployed in the region. Of the adult working population, 15·7 per cent. are unemployed and 32 per cent. of school leavers are unemployed. The Government have the audacity to remove in the main all forms of regional incentives. It is a crying shame that that should be done at this time.
The North-West industrial development association is an expert body composed of industrialists, trade unionists and people in local government, who are drawn from all parts of the region. The association has suggested measures which, if they were adopted by the Government, would go some way towards solving most of the economic problems in the region. The association wrote to the Prime Minister, but she declined on that occasion its request for discussions with her. The association thought that it had been snubbed.
The North-West region is the second largest in Britain and is larger than Scotland or Wales and second only to the South-East. One in seven of the labour force in the North-West is unemployed and we are conscious of the tragic waste of labour resources. Both in human and economic terms this is a tragic waste of human resources, which are untapped just because the Government believe that if we wait long enough the recession will come to an end and all our problems will come right, rather than adopting a sensible and mild reflation of the economy. We do not suggest that we should dash away like an unbridled horse. A sensible and methodical reflation is needed in the expectation that the world recession will end and that we will turn the corner sooner or later.
My region has and will continue to claim a greater share of public investment. The region has a proud record. It has served the nation well and has made a wonderful contribution to the nation's resources. We shall endeavour to use our parliamentary strength to achieve our objectives.
I turn now to regional aspects of the debate. I have certain scruples about the types of regional financial instruments that we should use. I welcome the new


thinking on this issue and I should like to see a closer and more detailed examination of the criteria we use for development areas. Lord Pilkington of Pilkington Brothers, the glass company of international renown, was once my teacher. He told me that he was given a grant simply because his factory happened to be seven-eighths of a mile within the ring fence. He said that he received £750,000 in Government grants in a year. The company was a great innovator. Lord Pilkington said that he had £14·5 million in assets that he could plough back in investment. Such grants should be based on need and accountability.
I turn now to travel-to-work areas in the industrial areas of Britain. Why should there not be elements in the criteria for granting finance that recognise mass urban obsolescence, the cost of urban renewal, the problems of communications, travel and transport? Those elements should be examined in detail with a view to drawing up new criteria. I am not convinced that unemployment should be the principal element on every occasion when making a judgment on whether one should invest in a particular area or attempt to interest, by financial inducements, a firm to move from one area to another.
I must be careful not to stray from the subject, but my constituency has an interest in this matter. There are difficulties. Recently, the Minister wrote a letter saying that the regional social security and insurance office was to be moved from Manchester to Liverpool. Liverpool and Manchester are both in the North-West, so the Government are robbing Peter to pay Paul. We are used to that. That was not a surprise to many of us.
The Government cannot carry on with this silly, obnoxious and abysmal industrial strategy. It has not worked in the region that I have talked about. According to the contributions that have been made by other right hon. and hon. Members, it will not work.
I remember when the Secretary of State's predecessor said some time ago that the Government's policies would produce a galaxy of entrepreneurs. We are still waiting for that. He said that industrialists need to be set free. They did not need financial help because they could stand on their own feet. We have witnessed that. Many of them are now on their backs. Thousands of family firms in my part of the world have closed and will never open again. That is the great tragedy of the Government's nonsensical strategy.
The right hon. Member for Stockton (Mr. Rodgers) made great play of the fact that, in its programme for jobs, Labour has never hidden the fact that, in any circumstances, increased public spending would have to be paid for. We have said that that will be the basis of Labour's jobs programme for the future. It is no use Conservative Members trying to make it appear that we were saying that that could be done as if we were pulling a rabbit out of a hat. The Government have said that we must switch resources from the wealth-consuming public sector to the wealth-producing private sector. A balance would have to be struck, where the two could come together in some form or another. I am not saying that there should be a partnership. It is difficult to get a redistribution of resources. That is one of the problems of regionalisation. There are too many in-built disparities in

the system. There is no comparison between the North-West and the South-East in per capita spending, health, education and industrial investment.
The problem could be solved by regional instruments. If we get value for money, and put our money in the right place at the right time for those in the greatest need, with a sense of urgency, and if we pursue policies that will give firms encouragement, we can try to re-establish confidence in industry. Although interest rates are high, firms could take heart to proceed, borrow cash and move in the right direction towards creating jobs not just in the North-West but in the whole country.

Mr. Neville Trotter: We are not looking wide enough in our discussion. The first thing that occurs to me when I consider the future of our industry is the world scene.
Reference has been made to the "Atlantic Conveyor", which will be replaced in the near future. It is a long story and I shall not go into it fully now. Two proposals were made by the Opposition about the reason why the order might not go to this country. The first was that we were not competitive—in other words, that productivity was not high enough in our shipyards. The second was that unfair advantages were being given to our competitors overseas. That was a wise summary of the problem.
However, it is a question not just whether the "Atlantic Conveyor" is replaced in this country but whether so much of our productive industry can compete in the world against competition from developing countries, for example, which pay low wages. I have seen shipyards in the Far East where the hours worked are twice as long as in this country and the rates of pay are perhaps one-third of the rates in this country. It is against that competition that not just our shipyards, but a large part of industry, must succeed if we are to have a future. Unfair competition is not always, but sometimes, encountered when we deal with foreign competitors.
When we consider the serious problems of unemployment and the misery that goes with it, which every hon. Member understands, we must remember that that problem is not confined to this country, but is to be found all over the Western industrial world. In the United States in 1980–81, the car industry lost over $5 billion. Shipyards have closed from one end of Europe to the other. The steel industry world-wide is in desperate circumstances. That is the result of a world recession on a scale that we have not seen since the 1930s.
We are suffering badly from the recession because of decades of fudging the issue in our industry. Perhaps we have been living in cloud-cuckoo-land. When I listened to the interesting speech by the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott), I felt that he was living in cloud-cuckoo-land because of the proposals that he made for dealing with our problems. There is no way that planning boards, committees, planning Ministers and civil servants will be able to solve the problems facing our industry in the North-East, or any other region.

Mr. Prescott: The Japanese do.

Mr. Trotter: If the hon. Gentleman is suggesting that we should adopt Japanese practices, I do not think for one moment that we can say that their method of operating is possible for our country or any other. Japanese start in the


morning with prayers for the management and owners. Their way of life and philosophy is completely different from ours. It is unrealistic to suggest that it can be adopted here.

Mr. Prescott: Why is Nissan coming to this country?

Mr. Trotter: I hope that Nissan comes to this country and that it comes to the North-East. I suspect that it will be for other reasons if it does not come. Opposition Members have been pessimistic and have made unhelpful comments about taking us out of the Common Market, thereby reducing the size of the market available to us. They have sneered about foreign investors in this country as if all foreign people who did so were evil. However, I believe that in almost every case, foreign firms that have invested in this country have brought sustained employment and benefit to the areas in which they have invested.
There is a suggestion that one can spend one's way out of those problems. The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East said that the Government have a terrible monetarist policy. The Government are at fault in not having defended their fiscal policy resolutely enough in the past two years. The figures that I obtained from the Library after the hon. Gentleman's speech show that in the first two years of the Government's period of office, the public sector borrowing requirement in real terms was 15 per cent. higher than in the last two years of the Socialist Government.

Mr. Prescott: That is what I said.

Mr. Trotter: It is not possible for the hon. Gentleman to have it both ways, and imply that the Government's monetarist policy is based on not spending money when the statistics show that they are spending more now than was spent during the Labour Government's period of office.

Mr. Prescott: There is a difference between the quantity and quality of the investment. I was talking about capital investment problems.

Mr. Trotter: The hon. Gentleman also commented on the Government's general monetarist policy, which I thought meant the total spending of the Government. Capital investment under the private sector has held up in the past couple of years to the same level—if not higher—as it was before the change of Government. If the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East disagrees, he is at liberty to pay a short visit to the Library as I did after his speech. No doubt it will give him the same statistics. I do not have the exact reference but no doubt the Library
The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East accused the Government of creating excessive interest rates. I cannot understand how any right-thinking or sensible person can suggest that even more money can be spent and yet interest rates will be reduced at the same time. If one spends more borrowed money, interest rates will increase. That is a fundamental law of economics.
There is a cry that more should be done to aid industry. I was heartened by what Mr. Duncan McDonald, the chairman of Northern Engineering Industries, said recently. That company is successful and is managing to weather the storm in heavy engineering. He said that the Government have a role to create an environment in which

businesses can operate successfully and that industry is not looking for grants on a charitable or begging bowl basis. He said:
I do not shirk from accepting that ultimately the responsibility for success or failure rests with management. That is our job, and ours is the responsibility to obtain maximum unified thrust from management, the work force and the unions.
The management, work force and unions in that company have succeeded. They are an example to us all.
Regional aid programmes have been with us for some time. Without them, there would be greater imbalance between the regions. Although we must defend the regions, we must be careful not to become too involved in any one of them at the expense of another. It is sometimes said that the North-East receives less aid than Wales, but it is forgotten that we receive more than the Scots. One gets nowhere on that argument. We must continue with the policies, but we must not set one region against another.
The future of British industry and our standard of living depends entirely on industry's productivity. It is growing. Our record in the 1970s was appalling. Between 1970 and 1980, productivity in Britain rose by little more than 2 per cent. a year, whereas it rose by 5 per cent. a year in the rest of Western Europe. Increasing our productivity to match that of our competitors is a serious problem. Much is being done to that end.
The Government are right to concentrate as much as they can on industries that have a clear future—those in which there is more automation and advanced technology. It may be argued that that will lead to a reduction of jobs in manufacturing industry. That is a world-wide feature that cannot be avoided. Machinery will take over from brawn and, to some extent, from brains. We should not run away from that.
Many jobs are extremely dull and repetitive. If they can be done by robot so much the better, provided that alternative jobs can be found for the work force. The future lies in the leisure industry and the public sector. I strongly favour a larger public sector, but we have enlarged the public sector before the country can afford it. I have confidence in Britain's long-term future.
The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East interrupted my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to correct him about our manifesto at the last general election. It is encouraging that he has read and remembered every word of it.

Mr. Prescott: I have a copy with me.

Mr. Trotter: Irrespective of whether we stated that the long-standing faults of British industry would take more than five years to correct, that is the case. That was in my mind and those of my colleagues at the general election. The deep-seated problems will not be put right in the short term. It will take two Parliaments to achieve that. We are on course to enjoy the full benefits of an improvement in employment and prosperity on that time scale.

Mr. Harry Cowans: I am glad to have the opportunity to speak at last. I listened to the Secretary of State's speech. One need not wait for a Supply Day to hear him claim successes. For a moment I thought that I had wandered into another Chamber, far from these shores. Having listened to him I could not believe that there were 3 million people unemployed. He mentioned everything but that figure.
The right hon. Gentleman accused my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) of not mentioning inflation. I shall make a counteraccusation. The right hon. Gentleman mentioned unemployment but never the unemployed. The hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Wainwright) summed the matter up neatly. He said that even the Secretary of State's employees do not agree with him. The Secretary of State missed the hon. Gentleman's pearls of wisdom.
The Secretary of State said that he had travelled all over the place. If that is so, and the people whom he employs do not agree with him, one can only assume that they were out when he reached their district. Has the right hon. Gentleman ever been to the Northern region?

Mr. Patrick Jenkin: I had two interesting days in the North-East a few weeks ago. I visited Teesside and several factories in Durham. I look forward to a visit to Newcastle and some factories there later in the year. I try to get around a little. I hope that I shall visit the hon. Gentleman's constituency.

Mr. Ron Lewis: What about Cumbria? It is also in the Northern region.

Mr. Cowans: I hope that the Secretary of State will visit my constituency, Durham and Cumbria. If he has time during the recess, he could make a different type of visit. I am willing to take him to places that he will never see on official visits. Perhaps he would then get the true picture of what is happening.

Mr. Cryer: The problem is what the Secretary of State does after he has made a visit.

Mr. Cowans: The House's first opportunity to debate the Northern region after the Government came to power was in January 1980. My right hon. Friend the Member for Houghton-le-Spring (Mr. Urwin) was aghast at the unemployment figure at that time—8·5 per cent. Conservative Members said that they were not responsible. They have repeated that today. They said that the problem was inherited from the previous Administration which had caused the problem. That argument cannot be valid now. The Conservatives have been in power since 1979. What has happened? I welcome the debate as it gives us an opportunity to examine the glowing successes that the Secretary of State described.
If the Government's policy had been successful, the 8·5 per cent. unemployment rate would at worst have remained and at best would have been reduced. Yet in the period from June 1979 to December 1981 the Northern region lost 85,000 manufacturing jobs. In other words, 20 per cent. of the region's manufacturing base has disappeared as a result of the Government's policy. Total employment fell by 151,000, or 12 per cent., in about 18 months. That is one area in which productivity has been achieved—the Government have been getting rid of jobs faster than anyone could have dreamt. My right hon. Friend the Member for Houghton-le-Spring would have more to complain about than he had in 1980 because unemployment in the region has effectively doubled.
One would have thought that a caring Government would have looked into the matter and tried to do something about it. Indeed, they have done something. That must be acknowledged. They have progressively

weakened regional policies to their lowest level in 20 years. That is the kind of action that they have taken, but there is worse yet. In their expenditure plans from 1982–83 to 1984–85 the Government anticipate a further reduction of 30 per cent. in regional assistance. That is bad enough, but still worse is to come in the second phase of the marvellous policy put forward by the Minister today to reduce the number of areas with assisted area status, to be implemented next month. Conservative Members have trotted out parrot fashion the idea that aid should be concentrated in assisted areas and special development areas, but the effect will be to reduce the percentage of the nation's employed who are in assisted areas from 40 per cent. to 27 per cent.
The Minister said that he had visited the Northern region. Even he must admit that a tremendous number of jobs have been lost. For example, Consett's Scotswood, the Workington steel works and the textile industry have been ravaged. There is a significant factor in each of those cases. Without exception, the people there played by the Government's rules. They increased their productivity, and that is on record, but they ended up on the dole.

Sir William Elliott: The hon. Gentleman says that Government policy has reduced employment in the region from which both he and I come. We were both involved in doing our best to keep Vickers Elswick in being. I hope that in his remarks on a motion claiming that Government policy has not worked he will not forget to mention that the enterprise zone secured a £7 million injection of capital for that company which will guarantee 700 jobs. There is a good side to what is happening in the North-East, as well as the aspects that he has mentioned.

Mr. Cowans: The hon. Gentleman makes a valid point. After every downpour, small puddles are left. Without any doubt, the Elswick factory has been saved. It has moved into the enterprise zone and I welcome the number of jobs that remain, but the total work force has been reduced. I welcome the new factory and the fact that the firm still exists, but there has been a net loss of jobs. That must not be forgotten. Of course I welcome any jobs. If I could find jobs in the North-East for all Conservative Members I would be happy to send them there.

Mr. Bill Homewood: The Government constantly advertise Corby in my constituency as an example of the success of regional development aids. There is no difficulty in getting Ministers to come to my constituency. They queue up to come. But even in that success story that the Government claim for their regional development programme we are losing jobs as fast as we are attracting them.
Speaking with local people this morning, I heard that 500 jobs were to be lost from the local steel works. That equals the total gain in the past 15 months. I welcome the regional policies, but—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Paul Dean): Order. The hon. Gentleman's intervention is turning into a speech.

Mr. Cowans: Perhaps my hon. Friend will be able to finish his speech if he succeeds in catching your eye later, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I welcome my hon. Friend's remarks as he helps to make my case. The idea that the Government's policies are working is an illusion. We are pumping in a great deal of money, although the


Government are trying to cut the amount, and we are running as fast as we can, but we are not even standing still.
The idea that the Government can slash public expenditure and still put their hand on their heart and say that they are trying to create jobs is the biggest myth ever to be perpetrated. It is amazing that when the Government talked about cutting public expenditure so many business men in the Northern region jumped out of their chairs and cheered. Less visible were the number of letters that I received when they suddenly found that because of the cuts their contracts with local authorities ceased. There were no more housing contracts. The same applied to equipment, stationery and everything else. That is another adverse effect that the Government have caused, and they could do something about it immediately. Nobody is saying that they should go berserk about it, but it is about time that this policy was reversed in the Northern region, albeit on a gradual, phased basis. It must be recognised that the Government's policies have not worked.
What is in the pipeline for the region? Unfortunately—again, this is Government policy—due to the failure of an amendment to the Finance Bill yesterday there is the prospect of a further 10,000 redundancies on Teeside. The hon. Member for Tynemouth (Mr. Trotter) mentioned the "Atlantic Conveyor". If the Government do not take a realistic view — it is not yet clear that they will—about ordering the replacement of that vessel, the shipbuilding industry in the North-East could come to an end right now. The situation is as bad as that. Perhaps on his next trip the Minister will visit the shipbuilding areas in the region.
The seriousness of the position applies not only to shipbuilding. Whenever a major company in a region closes down, there is a spin-off affecting the subsidiary firms that supply it. In shipbuilding that could lead to a loss of 12,000 jobs.
The Minister made great play about the British taxpayer. He was concerned that the taxpayer had to pay for this and for that. If the taxpayer is to pay for anything, it should be on projects where he gets a return. In the replacement of the "Atlantic Conveyor" we have the logic of the lunatic asylum. The British taxpayer is pouring money into compensation for a vessel that was lost in the service of this country, but that money will provide jobs in Japan. The people who received strong praise from Conservative Members during this crisis, and who toiled night and day to get the "Illustrious" out eight weeks ahead of schedule, are now to be told "It is a pity, but it looks as though there will be no jobs for you because we are paying money to make sure that the jobs go to Japan."
The hon. Member for Tynemouth (Mr. Trotter) argued that we live in the real world and that everything costs money. One does not need to be a Conservative Member to know that. Everything costs more since the Conservatives came to power.
It is argued that there is a difference between the tenders from Japanese companies and those from British Shipbuilders, but what will placing the order abroad cost the British taxpayer? First, he will have to foot most of the bill for the work going to Japan. Secondly, he will have to face the cost of redundancy payments, social security and unemployment benefit. He will be paying for the luxury of putting 12,000 of his fellow citizens out of work. By any standard that is the logic of the lunatic asylum. Perhaps the Minister will explain to the public how he

works that out. It is because the second part of the bill—redundancy payments, social security payments—do not appear in the Government's ledger. If they did, the people would halve a very different attitude towards the Government.
Shipbuilders on the Tyne have increased their productivity. They have a record second to none in building warships. They have a very good record in building merchant ships. They have done everything the Government have asked to increase productivity. The reward for the workers is the dole. These are the facts of life in the Northern region. The Minister may paint a picture of success, but, unfortunately, I am living right beside some of the failures. The dole—or "unemployment" if he prefers that word—is increasing across the board. It is 16·7 per cent. There are pockets in Sunderland—for example, Consett—where unemployment is 50 per cent. and other areas where it is between 40 per cent. and 50 per cent.
Even in Cumbria, a rural area, unemployment is much higher, but we arrive at that average of 16·7 per cent. However, the Minister has the audacity to paint a success story.

Mr. David Watkins: The Government are always telling us about their alleged successes—I use the word "alleged" deliberately—in dealing with the unemployment that followed the shutdown of the Consett steelworks. However, only about one-fifth of the unemployed people in my constituency are from the Consett steelworks. The Government are talking about an alleged success for a fraction of the population. The reality is that the Government have brought about the complete collapse of the economy in the area. The Secretary of State visited my constituency in 1966 when he canvassed against me in that year's election.

Mr. Cowans: Before I refer to Consett, may I remind the House of a tune that I think everyone in the House at sometime in his life has either sung, hummed or whistled. That tune is appropriate to the shipbuilders in the Northern region. It is called "Land of Hope and Glory." The shipyard workers are being told that they have had their moment of glory and now they are to be given very little hope. The Minister has the power to turn that round.
In these debates the Government frequently refute any arguments that they may be abandoning the North. I have warned the right hon. Gentleman that he might not like some of the facts. If he says that the Government are not abandoning the North, will he explain to me and to the people in the North how, when the group of Northern Members wrote three letters seeking to meet him—not to do any damage, but to talk about the financial arrangements for NEDC—we were refused? That was scandalous. It would have been common courtesy for him to meet us. He would have heard some of the facts that I have been stating tonight and I would not have needed to make this speech.

Mr. Patrick Jenkin: The hon. Gentleman met my hon. Friend the Minister of State and had a long discussion on the subject of NEDC financing. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will confirm that.

Mr. Cowans: The Minister of State did meet me, but there must be some misunderstanding. We did not discuss NEDC financing. I suggest that the Minister checks his records. I have copies of the letters and the Minister's


replies. He must also have copies. Although I met the Minister of State, it was on another matter. I hope that the Secretary of State will not mislead the House.

Mr. Patrick Jenkin: If I am wrong, I apologise. The hon. Gentleman will know whom he met and what subject was discussed. There have been long meetings with my hon. Friend about NEDC, culminating in a letter that he wrote recently and a question that he answered in the House. I beg the hon. Gentleman to believe that we take the problems of the Northern area seriously.

Mr. Cowans: I beg the Minister to believe that granting a meeting would have proved his concern. I have the correspondence in which that meeting was refused. Since then, without his having the courtesy to meet representatives from the region, it is proposed to increase the NEDC financial arrangements. However, this will not be done until the next financial year. That was one of the subjects we would have discussed with the Minister had we been given the opportunity. A meeting would not be too late, even now, and it would be to our mutual benefit. The Minister hardly projects a caring image when he refuses to meet the elected representatives of the Northern region to discuss such matters with him. It is bad for him to project that image and I am sure that he will put that right.
Conservative Members have already mentioned the election that brought the Government to power. The people of the Northern region certainly recall the posters that appeared during the campaign depicting the long dole queues. I shall let the Government into a secret. Some of those posters are still there.

Mr. Robert C. Brown: Saatchi and Saatchi.

Mr. Cowans: I thought that Mickey Mouse and Donald Duck had drawn them up. That certainly appears to be the case now, because those posters are stuck on empty factory walls. At that time, the Conservative Party said that the dole queues were too long. They are now three times as long in the Northern region. It will be impossible for the Government to use that poster again, because they would need a roll of wallpaper to depict the current situation.
Neither the Secretary of State nor hon. Members should get carried away with the illusion that we are doing very well. The right hon. Gentleman has talked about successes and for the umpteenth time we have been reliably informed that the situation is getting better. I cannot speak for other regions, but it is getting no better in the Northern region.
I shall give the right hon. Gentleman an audience if he wishes to challenge that view—one that is superior to the one sitting here tonight. I shall accompany the Secretary of State, because I might be needed. Perhaps he will tell 300 young kids in Newcastle who applied for one vacancy that things are getting better, but I doubt whether he will be able to convince them. In fact, the Government stand indicted of doing too little too late, of robbing Peter to pay Paul and of seeking to conquer inflation off the backs of the unemployed.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Before I call the next hon. Member, I should inform the House that the wind-up speeches are expected to begin at 9.10 pm. Many hon.
Members who have been present throughout the debate still wish to speak, and I therefore appeal for short speeches.

Mr. Barry Henderson: The hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, Central (Mr. Cowans) wanted to get a great deal off his chest, but, in view of what you have said, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I hope that he will forgive me if I do not take up his remarks.
Curiously enough, despite the extravagant terms of the Opposition motion, I detect some surprising areas of consensus. It may be trite to say that there is agreement that unemployment is a bad thing. It is recognised that certain areas of the country suffer from particularly severe unemployment. As a result, there is an onus on us all to ensure that Government assistance should go especially to the areas with the greatest problems. In other words, there is a consensus that, as far as practicable, we should try to create one nation of reasonable equality.
There is also a feeling that regional policy is a good thing, but hon. Members have questioned whether the way in which that policy has been carried out in the last 20 or 30 years has done very much good.
There is a paradox that although we think regional policy is good we are not sure it is working. We are not clear whether we are talking about that aspect of the policy concerned with improvements to the infrastructure to improve opportunity for development, or whether regional policy is about the amount of money given by the Government to encourage someone to do something that he might not otherwise have done. I hope that the debate will further stimulate thoughts about the nature, content and precise definition of regional policy in the future.
Scotland has done particularly well from the concentration of development area status on those areas most in need. That does not include most of my constituency, but 72 per cent. of the Scottish population live in areas with assisted area status, and more than half the population live in special development areas.
Having said that, I believe that the best way to use public funds is to encourage the growth, development and starting up of new firms. My right hon. Friend referred to the 90 new measures that have been taken to stimulate and assist small business. That kind of assistance has been extremely helpful, probably more directly helpful in the creation of jobs than much of what has traditionally been regarded as regional policy, which, as some hon. Members have suggested, does not create many new jobs.
We should perhaps take a radical look at the principles of regional policy and decide on the incentives that will be most useful in the creation of new businesses and jobs. We should consider making those available in the first instance regardless of geographical area. We could perhaps relate a percentage increase to a basic level of entitlement, depending on the level of unemployment in a particular employment exchange area where the business is being carried out. I put that as a thought arising out of the nature of the debate.
We have to recognise something that Labour Members seem reluctant to recognise. That is that jobs come from employers, and that they depend for their business on customers. The prosperity of those employers and employees alike in business depends on the satisfaction of the customer with the goods and services that they have provided. Among those things that have positively harmed


employment is brute force trade unionism and slack management. So often, short-term cheap popularity can be gained easily by the manager who turns a blind eye to bad practices. In the same way, cheap popularity may be gained by a slack Government who turn a blind eye to bad practices in the nation. There have been too many of these, and the Government have now turned a sharp and beady eye on some of them.
Not least among these practices is the way that some State-backed monopolies have gone about business in the past. One Labour Member referred to British Airways and said that the Government were doing horrid things to them. However, here is a classic example of a major national resource which has increased the cost of business, industry and individuals because of slackness about its manning.
For donkey's years we have been told in Scotland that the Highlands and Islands air service could never he run at a profit, and BA resisted the suggestion of anybody else being allowed to run it. It said that it could not be run at a profit and that they required substantial funds from the taxpayer. They have now found that they can run the air service at a profit and with a better service for the customers. That is only because of the pressure of events and the encouragement of the Government.
Mention was made of the coal industry, which is heavily subsidised. For every person employed in the coal industry £35 of taxpayers' money is paid out every week of the year. There is also the case of British Leyland. The cartel that it has organised throughout the country is costing the people and the business community thousands of millions of pounds. The typical price of a car in this country, even a British-made car, is between £1,000 and £5,000 more than the price for which the car is available on the Continent. If that is multiplied by the millions of cars registered every year in this country, one realises that it costs the country thousands of millions for the benefit of the small number of people in the British motor car industry.
We heard much about British Rail and its overmanning earlier today. It received £870 million of taxpayers' money this year, which would provide much infrastructure for the regions.
I wish to make one brief constituency point. My constituency is a microcosm of the national position. Broadly speaking, we have fractionally under the national average unemployment. We have had more new firms starting up than have closed by a substantial degree, although there has been a net decrease in employment. We have one unemployment black spot in Levenmouth which has a special problem with a particular firm. The problem results from the company falling between two stools in a deal between multinational companies. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the industry Minister at the Scottish Office for what he and his Department are doing to ensure that no artificial measures can be taken to prevent the continuing of a viable business in that plant.
Last, but not least, I emphasise that one of the most helpful things that could happen in my constituency is not the handout of money to individual firms, but the rapid establishment of the East Fife regional road.

Mr. George Park: The Government, in their amendment, once again repeat that their policy is to concentrate regional aid in the areas of greatest need, although in making that statement, which

on the face of it sounds eminently fair, less attention is paid to the fact that they may be reducing the total amount of cash available by about £230 million. They do not shout too much about that and they are not forthcoming about how they identify "need". We in the West Midlands have been trying for months to find out how the Department of Industry defines need, but we have had no success.
The judgment cannot be based on crude unemployment figures, but Ministers are coy about discussing the other factors that they take into account. Inevitably many hon. Members seek to prove that their areas are in the greatest need and that that should be recognised. The sad fact is that the whole of Britain is in difficulty and the Government's policies have contributed substantially to that.
The scourge of unemployment has followed those who came to the West Midlands from all over the country seeking work. Our percentage increase in unemployment, at more than 190 per cent., is the highest in the land. Even the relatively prosperous East Midlands is finding that, because of Government policies, basic industries in that part of the country, such as knitwear, are being undermined.
We have to tell those who advocate that the unemployed should travel round to find jobs that in the West Midlands there are 55 candidates for every vacancy, compared with six in May 1979. The 1981 census showed an unemployment level of over 30 per cent. in the Deritend area of Birmingham and that more than 30 wards in the West Midlands county council area have unemployment of over 20 per cent. of the working population. The youth unemployment figures are even worse and are as high as 40 or 45 per cent. in some areas. And still the numbers increase. Last month more than 3,500 people lost their jobs, taking the county's unemployment figure to 225,000—over 16 per cent. of the work force. We shall have to add to that number the summer school leavers for whom there will be few jobs.
The human tragedies contained within the cold statistics must not be forgotten—tragedies such as a man of 40 or 45 years of age being told that he is too old and the youngster who will never have even the chance of a job.
For those in work there is constant tension and insecurity. We have the spectacle of Alvis in Coventry winning the Queen's award for exports and making one-quarter of its labour force redundant the next week. Coventry Climax, another of the disposables from British Leyland, is embarking on rationalisation, which is a euphemism for redundancies.
British Aerospace is closing a plant with an excellent record in Leicestershire in order, we are told, to concentrate in other areas. The Government wash their hands of any involvement because the firm has been privatised, but the company is telling all and sundry that unless there is funding from the Government it will have no future. If the company requires Government funding, why, apart from reasons of dogma, did the Government privatise it?
Improvements in productivity in the car industry, of the order of 40 per cent., at Talbot and British Leyland, Longbridge, have resulted in short-time working. The employees have worked themselves out of a job.
The Government may not be too keen to listen to Labour Members, but perhaps they will listen to the new president of the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders. He wants an end to fiscal discrimination against


the car and reciprocal action against those using tariff and non-tariff barriers against British exports. He wishes to lower fixed costs to industry, including energy costs, and he wishes greater Government investment in industry for research and development.
Alternatively, the Government might heed the West Midlands CBI. In a recent survey, it said that success in raising competitiveness can be sustained only if the Government act to remove some of the externally imposed constraints on companies. The West Midlands CBI also calls for an immediate increase in capital spending by the public sector to provide an initial stimulus to economic recovery. There is plenty of work to be done and it must be tackled at some time. The longer the work is left, the greater the problems will become and the more expensive it will be to do this work. Examples where stimulus should be provided include new housing, housing repairs and renovations, roads, sewers and railway electrification. All those projects are bedevilled by Government policy and all have the potential to take people off the dole. North Sea oil resources could be used to rejuvenate our economy instead of paying for social benefits. Even the initiatives taken by local authorities to encourage new industry are in jeopardy if the amount of money allocated for this purpose is reduced.
What consideration has been given to the effectiveness of the present regional strategy? The Public Accounts Committee tried to find out what benefits had accrued to regions after the injection of financial aid. The Committee could not reach any conclusion, and that casts doubt on the Government's present policy. Judging by ministerial statements, there also seems to be a conviction that aid given to British Leyland—the hon. Member for Fife, East (Mr. Henderson) is under the same illusion—is all retained in the West Midlands. That is untrue. I understand that that conviction is one reason why the Government decided that the West Midlands should not be given assisted area status. That decision in turn denies us access to European funds.
In a gravely weakened economy, where we already have two nations—the employed and the unemployed—in which, even if there is an upturn in the economy, major industries will never again employ the numbers that they formerly employed, great stress has been laid by the Government on the formation of new small businesses. It is appropriate that the Minister responsible for small industry should be sitting on the Front Bench. In itself, the encouragement of new small businesses is laudable, but such measures are completely inadequate to meet increasing unemployment, especially in the Midlands, where 500 businesses went bankrupt in the past six months. That figure is 8 per cent. higher than for a similar period the previous year.
Even when the Department of Industry hit upon a scheme that was attractive to small business men, the Treasury soon put a damper on it. The Treasury provided one extra sum of £10 million and then the lists were closed. The Minister of State knows that that is true and that there were many more potential customers for that scheme.
The current regional aid is nowhere near equal to dealing with the increasing problem of bankruptcies and unemployment and any reduction in that aid will exacerbate the problem. A complete reappraisal of regional policy is required, in greater depth and scope than the most recent one, so that specific rather than general aid

is provided. The major objective of that reappraisal should be the reduction of mass unemployment. But given the Government's dogmatic approach, I doubt whether they are willing or able to take an objective view. The only alternative is the return of a Labour Government—

Mr. William Wilson: Will my hon. Friend confirm that it has been estimated by the West Midlands county council economic unit that, as a result of unemployment, that area is now losing £960 million every year, which represents massive purchasing power?

Mr. Park: I had noticed that statistic, but I have tried not to give the House too many statistics because we have had a surfeit of them today. The problems of the West Midlands seem to have been noticed because both Front Bench speakers and other hon. Members have mentioned the rapidly deteriorating position.
The only alternative is the return of a Labour Government committed to a policy of expansion.

Mr. Gordon Wilson: I pay tribute to the maiden speech of the hon. Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie (Mr. Clarke). It was amusing, relevant and effective, and I look forward to hearing him again.
In Scotland today 341,000 people are unemployed. That is a monument not just to the Government but to the rundown of the economy in Scotland and in the United Kingdom. It is clear from our debate that there is an inter-relationship between the overall economy and regional policy.
I do not wish to deal with industrial policy but to concentrate on regional economic development. We must realise that in Scotland we have lost 42 per cent. of our manufacturing industries in the past decade. Part of the employment losses have been made good in the service industries but there has been a substantial increase in unemployment. People have begun to turn a jaundiced eye on regional policy because, although it has made a contribution, it has not been the miraculous solution that we once expected.
John Pollock, president of the Scottish Trades Union Congress, in his speech at this year's conference, made some enlightening remarks about industrial development. He put his finger firmly on the need for the decentralisation of economic policy. He said:
On past evidence, I do not believe that the United Kingdom Parliament is capable of introducing overall economic policies for the United Kingdom which, without substantial modification, are flexible enough to meet the particular needs of all areas in the United Kingdom. That is why the General Council of the STUC has used one of its three motions before the Congress to reiterate its determination to achieve a Scottish Assembly with legislative and economic powers … A Scottish Assembly must have the power to influence significantly the economic and industrial health of Scotland.
He also said that, as there is evidence of a flow of employment opportunities towards the South and South-East of England, Scotland's economic strength and its mineral wealth should be used to counterbalance the drift south. That is one of the strongest points that the STUC president could make, because there is no doubt that, although Scotland has suffered badly from unemployment, it is a wealthy nation and its resources have not been put to work in order to build up employment opportunities.
The Monopolies and Mergers Commission, in a series of reports, the last of which dealt with the Royal Bank of


Scotland, said that there were continuing problems with the centralisation of industry. It said that every time firms were taken over there was a loss of talent, opportunity and power of direction in the Scottish economy and that, overall, it was unhelpful. In other successful economies on the Continent and in the United States there tend to be political and economic counterbalances in the system, so it is not necessary to put all the money into regional policies, as the highly centralised United Kingdom Government have done.
It has been said that the public sector presents one of the best opportunities for future growth. I accept that economic growth depends frequently on the amount of investment that central Government are willing to put into any area of development. However, it is equally significant that nationalised industries do not operate an economic policy that is designed for the particular needs and circumstances of the Scottish economy, and I think that the same argument could be applied to other areas of the United Kingdom. Nationalised industries are responsible to Departments in Whitehall, and major decisions on economic policy affecting Scotland are taken in London by Departments such as Industry, Trade, Employment and the Treasury. So many nationalised industries in Scotland are merely regional branches whose function is to carry out the policies that are dictated by the centre and designed to serve overall English needs. That is a severe weakness in the United Kingdom, and it is one that we should view with fresh eyes, in view of the pressures that are now being put on the Government to spend more money on areas of the United Kingdom that in the past have not made those demands.
The world recession has caused many factories—many of them in multinational ownership—to close their doors. We all know that those doors will not easily be reopened. Nor will replacement jobs appear from outside. We are in competition with countries throughout the world for a share of the international investment. That is why more and more of us now believe that it is more important to build up indigenous industries, although of course we welcome what jobs and new technology we can get from abroad. Unless we can create employment through entrepreneurial activity in our country, we shall get nowhere.
I shall truncate my remarks, because I know that other hon. Members wish to speak. I ask the Minister to look closely at the operation of regional policy. Between 1945 and 1971, using the figures that were provided by Mr. R. R. MacKay of Bangor university, the net employment gains in Scotland were 15 per cent., in Northern Ireland 32 per cent., in Wales 36 per cent. and in the North of England 25 per cent. Too many employment grants go on plant and machinery, and too few on employment creation. Regional policy can also be criticised in that much of the money goes on projects that would probably have come to a given area anyway, because the industrialists concerned found that it was the best site.
Dundee in my constituency has special development area status. Certainly, it has been useful, but it has not proved to be the manna from heaven that many areas think it is. Probably the best advantage of that status is the help and asistance and cheap loans that the area can get from the EEC. Without special development area status, an area might not qualify for that help. However, few jobs are a direct result of having special development area status.
There have been many spectacular plant closures in Scotland over the past two years. There was the smelter at Invergordon, the Talbot car plant at Linwood, the pulp mill at Corpach, Plessey and Bathgate. British Leyland in Bathgate is in difficulty, and Ravenscraig is under threat. Overall, that points to the inadequacy of regional policy.
Regional policy has not managed to cure Scottish economic problems. So we should turn our attention more and more to decentralisation of the economy, particularly as the United Kingdom Government have not managed to run the British economy in an effective and efficient way so as to provide economic growth. If we cannot do that on a centralised basis, we must rely more and more upon the mechanisms and machinery for development at regional and, in Scotland's case, national level. New ideas must be deployed.
As a result of last night's vote, I am worried about the petrochemical industry. The Labour Party pushed to a vote an issue that would have been detrimental to Scotland and it caused Scottish Labour Members to vote with the Conservative Party in order to safeguard Scottish interests vis-a-vis those of their own party. It is because of the Labour Party's failure to protect Scotland's interests, and indeed the failure of the Conservative Party to improve the economy, that I am utterly convinced that we require a Scottish Parliament to solve our problems.

Mr. Fred Silvester: I have had the pleasure of listening to every word of the debate, and what strikes me most is its familiarity. Everyone who listens to debates on regional policy in the House has a strong sense of deja vu.
There are three fundamental errors in our attitude to regional policy. We seem to regard it as temporary, as charity and with regard to industrial matters only.
Regional policy is not temporary. People express surprise that it has been going on since the 1930s. However, it will continue until the 2030s because it deals with a fundamental situation that will not go away. There is nothing that we can do, short of maintaining a policy from Government and using Government funds, to correct the permanent imbalance between different parts of Britain. It is important that we should understand that, because it affects the way in which we deal with the individual policies.
I get fed up with the way in which people talk about the application of regional policy to different parts of Britain as though it were an act of charity or a subsidy. It is nothing of the kind. Regional policy is a bargain struck between the regions and an over-centralised country. Because of the flow of funds in Britain there would be a continuous flow to the South-East if there were no bias in public expenditure. The differences between the regions would become unacceptably acute.
We tend to discuss regional policy in terms of industrial policy. Most hon. Members today have spoken of the £900 million that goes in industrial aid on the regional Vote. Again, that is not true. The most valuable forms of regional policy are those that take into account expenditure on all forms of government. One of the most interesting aspects of the partnership development was the attempt to bring together the Votes of different Departments to ensure that policies in relation to health, housing, transport and roads were all brought together with the Vote for industry.
At this hour I shall not belabour a local point, but I must tell my hon. Friend the Minister that his attitude towards the question whether the Manchester and Salford inner city partnership area should or should not be a development area—I apply this to all those other inner city areas which are not covered by urban development corporations—is based simply on the criteria relating to the travel-to-work area and unemployment statistics.
The essence of the partnership area is that every Department makes its contribution. The Minister's Department's contribution is to deal with regional development grants and regional policy. My hon. Friend the Minister could and should make his contribution towards getting things moving in the inner cities. The argument that is based on the narrow ground of travel-to-work areas is bizarre.
I listened with great respect to the speech of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, and I would love to believe him. However, I see no evidence of the upturn of which he spoke. There are certain swallows and signs in the clouds that we would love to believe. Indeed, earlier in the year I thought that there might be a sign of change when we saw that lovely point in the graph at which the level was beginning to flatten out.
In the North-West, the unemployment figures show that in December, January and February the trend was in our favour. In March, the figures began to get worse, in April they were a little worse, and in May even worse, and the provisional figures for June are again worse. There is room for intelligent relaxation. The Department of Industry and related Departments could take many steps that would prove to be of permanent benefit to the economy and that would provide temporary relief for unemployment. I hope that my right hon. Friend and his colleagues will direct their attentions to such matters.

Mr. Barry Sheerman: I shall, of necessity, be brief and truncate my speech. However, I must not omit to add my congratulations to those that have already been given to my hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie (Mr. Clarke) on his maiden speech. I warn him that if my experience is anything to go by that will be the last time that he is called to speak so early in a debate.
However, my hon. Friend's speech reminded me of the time when I made my maiden speech, three years ago. Despite the rising tide of unemployment, the number of industrial collapses and the general misery that faces us, there has been a decline in the strength of passion expressed in speeches in the Chamber. One cannot keep up such a level of passion for ever. My hon. Friend reminded us how passionately we should feel about the awful situation facing Britain.
As a Member of Parliament from the Yorkshire and Humberside area, I know that that area has been devastated in the past three years by the Government's policies. Indeed, I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott), because he made one of the most interesting and fresh speeches that we have heard for a long time. It showed that the Labour Party is not sitting on its backside saying that it will try the same old policies. The Labour Party sent two of its Front Bench spokesmen into the regions to talk to

people at every level of industry and local government to ensure that the new structures that are needed will be relevant and creative and will bring an end to mass unemployment. That is a sign of fresh thinking.
In my maiden speech I warned that we look too often for panaceas and for easy, simple solutions that will cure everything. In July 1979 I warned against becoming too hooked on monetarism. However, the Government have become hooked on it. When I go round Yorkshire and Humberside I meet business men, trade union officials and ordinary working people. They do not have any grand ideas about completely new structures to meet the needs of today. They do not talk as coherently as the chairman of the Yorkshire and Humberside CBI. On 8 July he said that Yorkshire and Humberside were stagnating and:
The economy was as dead as a dodo. Everything would seem to suggest that we are back into another recession before we have even come out of the last one.
The chairman does not call for a 0·5 per cent. decrease in interest rates but for a reduction of 2 per cent. to 4 per cent. He calls for a mini-Budget and a realisation that the position of most business men in Yorkshire and Humberside is desperate and that they cannot hang on until April. That is the message from the CBI and Yorkshire Post business section, which states:
Business failures in Yorkshire hit record level.
That is now, and it is not in cloud-cuckoo-land. In view of that evidence, we do not need just a mild reflation or, as the chairman of the CBI was saying, to embrace Keynesianism. Let us reflate our economy. We can talk about regional policies, but most people want a modest start to a reflation of business activity at every level.—[AN HON. MEMBER: "At any price?"] Not at any price. As sensible business men, and the Labour Party point out, we need a programme of relatively non-inflationary public works and investment—gas-gathering, new sewerage schemes, and electrification of the railway lines. That could start the country back on the road to recovery, and it is the way we must go, if not much further.
During our period in Opposition we are creating policies for alternative structures that will go far beyond embracing Keynesianism. Our plan for responsive democratic structures in the regions will make a great difference. No hon. Member could be satisfied with previous regional policies. The evidence is that about 250,000 jobs were created during the growth period from 1960 to 1976 by regional policies. That is not a negligible number. However, many other jobs were lost because of the change from urban to rural development. Those changes in the geo-economic life of the country are often more important than what Governments do.
From 1976 regional policies have not achieved what they should have done, because they do not work against a backcloth of decline. Regional policies have to be much more innovative if they are to deal with regional regeneration in a time of recession. Two things have to go hand in hand. We have to reflate our economy and have regional structures and development. There has been a television advertisement that annoyed many hon. Members from the regions. It comes from the London Docklands development corporation and says:
Why go to the middle of nowhere when you can go to the middle of London?
My constituents and most people in the regions outside the South-East believe that the Government have no conscience about what they believe to be the middle of


nowhere. The Government should remember that in Yorkshire, Lancashire and the West Midlands—in the middle of nowhere—the people have the vote. When the next election comes, they will give the Government the answer.

Mr. Stanley Orme: My first job is pleasant. It is to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie (Mr. Clarke) on his outstanding maiden speech. He brought a great deal of wit and amusement to his speech, but he made it with dignity and compassion. We shall hear a great deal more from him and he will bring from Scotland much expertise and experience. I sincerely congratulate him.
We have had a major and important debate, which has exposed the blatant failure of Government policies. My hon. Friends have highlighted the problems of unemployment and industrial decline in almost every region. It is important to emphasise the need for a regional policy. Major arguments were advanced by my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) in a fine speech. We must have a nation-wide strategy. The Labour Party and the TUC liaison committee, in a major policy statement issued yesterday, point the way forward.
The Secretary of State mentioned Labour Weekly. Perhaps he will have time in the next day or two to study our up-to-date policy statement in which we spell out the areas where there must be change and development.
The Secretary of State made a miserable announcement about assisted area status. In 1979, the Government cut regional aid, which then covered 40 per cent. of the population, to cover 26 per cent. of the population. Last week they increased that by a mere 1 per cent. I cannot get the figures from the Department.

Mr. Patrick Jenkin: The figure involved is about £6 million.

Mr. Orme: I thank the Secretary of State. That is £6 million compared with a £233 million cut in 1979. That £233 million was not to assist the regions but a straight public expenditure cut to save money when the Government were giving money to taxpayers in the higher tax bracket and others. If ever there was a case of fiddling while Rome burns, this is it.
Over 3 million people are unemployed and there is no sign of an improvement. The rosy picture painted by the Prime Minister and other Ministers is false. Even one of the Secretary of State's hon. Friends cannot see an upturn. He has seen a few swallows but no summer. That is underlined by independent sources. For example, the London Business School's latest outlook predicts a growth of 1 per cent. over 1981 for the year. That is the fourth successive time that the school has downgraded its growth forecast. A year ago it predicted that output would grow by 2·8 per cent. in the current year.
The OECD "Economic Outlook" states that its main themes are the grave prospect for jobs and the uncertain prospects of a substantial revival of investment. It forecasts that unemployment will continue to rise. It shows that the situation in Britain is worse than that in any other major industrial nation.
The justification given by the Government for the economic state of the country is that the recession is world-wide and no fault of theirs. That is just not so. The report states that while unemployment rose by about 2½ per cent. in the major seven countries between 1979 and the first quarter of 1982, in Britain alone it rose by 6¾ per cent.
We also have evidence from last night. The Tory Back-Bench finance group met Sir Terence Beckett, the president of the CBI. The Guardian states today:
Sir Terence gave the committee an unpalatable forecast that unemployment was likely to reach 3,250,000 by the turn of the year. He predicted that British industry, the 'Mr. Atlas' who was holding up the British economy, was now looking more anaemic and seedy than at any time in the past.
He complained that the Government had failed to deliver its promised help for productive industry. He called on the Government to increase industrial investment.
Those are the words of the president of the CBI. He is saying directly to the Secretary of State that the policies that he is pursuing are not working. That is the evidence from industry. He said that the cause was lack of investment and lack of the will of the Government to turn round the situation.
Similar gloomy predictions have been made by ICI, for example. There was a debate about ICI last night. It forecasts that to the end of the decade it cannot see anything but 1 per cent. per annum of growth. One of the tragedies, which the Government should be doing something about, is that ICI is threatening to transfer its investments overseas, in other words to take British capital out of the United Kingdom and to take British jobs out of the United Kingdom at the same time. A company such as ICI should be told that it has a responsibility to the British economy, under which it has prospered so well in the past. That is another example of disaster for British industry and jobs.
The manufacturing sector of industry has been severely eroded. In the engineering industry the forecast is minuscule growth. The Engineering Employers Federation stated this week that the present rate of improvement was so slow that we would not get back to the 1975 figures of output until 1986. Those are not the words of a Left-wing organisation. I have experienced the EEF at the negotiating table. It consists of hard-headed business people.
One of our major industries is steel. Once again, the British Steel Corporation is in crisis. The weakness of Britain's main steel-consuming industries—engineering, motor cars, shipbuilding and construction—is cutting the ground from under BSC. The problem is simply one of demand. As Mr. MacGregor said recently:
The great tragedy of British Steel is not the decline of the British Steel Corporation but the decline in the British manufacturing industries.
Mr. MacGregor is a hard-headed business man who was appointed by the Government to reorganise BSC. He has now achieved reorganisation, improved output and growth. He now says that it is not the efficiency of British Steel but the lack of demand that is responsible for his problems. The Government must be answerable for that lack of demand.
Car production has dropped to its lowest level since the 1950s. The textile industry is once again in one of its major slumps. They seem to occur more regularly than ever. Investment in manufacturing continues to decline, yet the Government fail to obtain vital orders for British industry. The latest example is the proposed Cunard order for a replacement of the "Atlantic Conveyor". It is to be built


in either Japan or South Korea. My hon. Friend the Member for Jarrow (Mr. Dixon) raised the matter under Standing Order No. 9 earlier today. The original ship was lost in the Falklands conflict. Seamen's lives were lost with it. The seamen should be decorated. The directors of Trafalgar House should be charged with treason.

Mr. Ian Lloyd: rose—

Mr. Orme: I shall name them. Lord Matthews, Nigel Broackes, E. W. Parker, Sir Francis Sandilands, G. H. B. Carter, W. B. Slater, the Marquess of Tavistock, V. A. Grundy—

Mr. John Ward: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for a member of the Opposition Front Bench to make charges of treason that he cannot substantiate?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Ernest Armstrong): The right hon. Gentleman must take responsibility for his speech.

Mrs. Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for a member of the Opposition Front Bench to mention a Member of the other place in such terms?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The right hon. Gentleman cannot accuse Members of the other place of treason.

Mr. Orme: I withdraw. Nevertheless, I have made the matter clear. The Secretary of State has some responsibility. Ministers go around talking about buying British but when it comes to purchasing British and telling Cunard and Trafalgar House to invest in the British economy, they are silent.

Mr. Ian Lloyd: All hon. Members would like British Shipbuilders to be able to tender effectively and competitively for a container ship. However, it is unwilling to do so, it is unwilling to build a ship of that complexity and it cannot do so competitively. Does the right hon. Gentleman believe that that burden should be deliberately placed on British Shipbuilders?

Mr. Orme: Throughout the Falklands crisis, when we needed ships and they had to be turned around quickly, men in the North-East and elsewhere worked night and day. British Shipbuilders could build the new container ship competitively. It merely needs the chance to do so.
The story is the same throughout every sector of British industry—lack of investment, collapse of demand, layoffs, redundancies and short time working. The economic news is universally bad, despite the latest output figures. The hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Wainwright) suggested how the May figures were calculated in relation to the bank holiday. There was also undoubtedly a Falklands crisis factor involved as well.
The Government have no strategies to deal with the tidal wave of destruction. They continue to rely on market forces without reference to the needs of our industry. They look no further than occasional tinkering with the problems. They are blind and deaf to the death rattle of British industry. Wherever one looks, unemployment is reaching new records—441,000 in the North-West, 350,000 in the West Midlands, which is currently the area with the highest growth rate, 223,000 in the North-East and 699,000 in the South-East. One could go on. The

figures speak for themselves. The banner on the front of County Hall has obviously hurt the Secretary of State because it tells the truth about the number of unemployed in the Greater London area.
Despite those horrific figures and imposible Government policies, people are fighting back. I congratulate the GLC on setting up its enterprise board to create jobs in the capital. I also congratulate the West Midlands and Lancashire enterprise boards. Local authorities are fighting back to create jobs. That has been their major priority since they have been attacked and partly dismantled by the Government's policies. Their task is to create jobs in their areas. Whether it is on a large scale, as in the case of the GLC, the West Midlands, Corby, Sheffield, St. Helens, Salford and many other areas, or on a smaller scale, jobs are being created. Section 137 of the Local Government Act 1972 provides only a 2p rate, but it is being used to create employment, as my hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Mr. Cunliffe) has said.
Against that gloomy overall picture, we were given a taste of what a further dose of Thatcherism would mean for the British people in the recent speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He spelt it out very clearly. Instead of talking about growth, productivity, investment and unit costs, he gave the familiar anti-trade union speech threatening further privatisation in industry and in local government, including health and education. All that adds up to a policy of two nations—discrimination by a favoured minority against the majority. A nation torn by dissent with rising unemployment, social deprivation and a rising crime rate is the reality of Tory policies.
Yesterday, the Labour Party and TUC liaison committee launched a major part of its industrial policy under the heading of planning and industrial democracy. That policy is completely opposed to Thatcherism and monetarism. It will lay the basis for industrial recovery. The plan for jobs spells out an economic future for this country that will restore employment opportunities, based on the concept that investment linked with a major public sector and the implementation of industrial democracy is a radical and Socialist alternative to the Government's disastrous policies.
We must restore competitiveness without conflict. We shall use planning to expand capacity and replace outdated equipment. We shall lower the rate of the pound to make British industry competitive. We shall certainly do something about the export of capital that is still leaving the United Kingdom at a disastrous rate for our economy. Investment should be made in the United Kingdom.
Our policy statement makes it clear that we want to see an expanded Department of Industry that will have powers in its own right. Transfer forecasting and medium-term forecasting must be removed from the Treasury and given to the Department of Industry. Expenditure planning could also go to the Department of Industry. We want industry to be financed by a national investment bank. We also want to attract pension fund investment.
The hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Mr. Beaumont-Dark) referred to a national planning college. There are about 36 universities in the United Kingdom, but not one of them is solely committed to training people for management in industry or the public sector. Continuously, we have to obtain management for the public sector from the private sector. We need to train people ourselves for the public sector. We would set up a training college for that purpose.
Within this infrastructure there is clearly a need to strengthen regional policy and the contribution that regional and local planning can make to our objectives. In the past few years there has been a rapid decline in the traditionally prosperous areas, with unemployment rates reaching levels usually associated with the deprived areas. Critical problems are emerging within our inner city areas.
A Labour Government will get the economy moving and create growth and employment, but there is no doubt that areas will be left behind, in parts of Scotland, the North-East, Wales and Merseyside, that will need a regional policy. At present every region needs a regional policy and an overall policy is necessary. My hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East has been visiting such areas and discussing the measures that will be necessary to solve their problems. We accept that the policies implemented by past Labour Governments have not filled the bill. We need to look afresh at these areas and to regenerate industry.
The Secretary of State referred to inflation. I agree, that is important. He referred to unit costs, and that, too, is important. He talked about competitiveness of British industry. Yes, that is important. We want to see industry moving, because without a successful British industry we shall not create wealth in our society, let alone improve or even maintain our standard of living. The manufacturing sector in the United Kingdom is approximately 26 per cent. of the insured working population. Therefore, a great responsibility rests on the manufacturing sector.
The proposals put forward by the Opposition are an alternative to the policies pursued by the Government. The position now is not two or three times as bad as it was when the Government came to office, but five or six times as bad. That is a condemnation of Government policy. The sooner we can implement the policies outlined by the Opposition this evening, the better it will be for Britain.

The Minister of State, Department of Industry (Mr. Norman Lamont): I join the right hon. Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme) in congratulating the hon. Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie (Mr. Clarke) on his maiden speech. The hon. Gentleman is a rare phenomenon in the House—a Labour victor at a by-election. He told us in most amusing and attractive terms about the largest bowling alley in the country, and, as the right hon. Gentleman observed, he bowled the House over. He made some well-deserved tributes to his predecessor, Mr. Dempsey, who was well respected and well liked on both sides of the House. The hon. Gentleman has great experience in local government, and we very much look forward to hearing from him again.
The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) spent much time talking about the basis on which our announcement on assisted areas was made. Our major consideration was the maintainance of stability in regional policy. We wanted to keep changes to a minimum. That has been one of the things that business men have asked of us repeatedly.
The factors that we considered in that review were relative unemployment rates, not just in the short term but over a period; the geographical location of individual areas; their distance from markets; and the consequences for neighbouring areas of an up-grading or down-grading. We also took absolute numbers into consideration.
Because of that emphasis on stability, we have attempted to rectify only the worst anomalies. I am not saying that some areas do not have higher unemployment rates than others—

Mr. Prescott: You can say that again!

Mr. Lamont: Of course I can, because there are no fewer than 380 travel-to-work areas, and the idea that we can chop and change, or put areas on and off the map in response to short-term movements in unemployment rates, is absolutely impracticable and quite impossible. Our commitment, which business men have wanted, is to maintain the stability of the map, and we intend to do so until the next election.

Mr. Prescott: To save money.

Mr. Lamont: The hon. Gentleman will know that changes to areas in the intermediate class do not produce great savings. Therefore, the motive was not money, it was stability.
My hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Withington (Mr. Silvester) referred to the Manchester-Salford partnership area. He and other hon. Members have uttered some strong criticisms of the decisions that have been made. I accept that the interaction of our urban area programme and regional policy requires further examination, and my hon. Friend made some valid points.
I cannot hope to cover all the areas that have been mentioned in the debate, although it was surprisingly free of regional lobbying of the kind that one might have expected.
The hon. Member for Leigh (Mr. Cunliffe) mentioned the North-West. The Government have recognised the most serious problems in that area. Between 1979 and 1982, we have given £400 million in regional assistance to the North-West. Most of it has gone to the development areas and special development areas, and they will continue to receive the bulk of that help. Even after the changes that we have made to the map in the North-West of England, 45 per cent. of the population there will still be in assisted areas. That is the second highest of any region in England, and far higher than in the country generally.
I understand the strong feelings of hon. Members who represent constituencies in the North-West, but they should take into account the strong feelings of those who represent the West Midlands, feelings epitomised in the speech of my hon. Friend for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Mr. Beaumont-Dark). Many parts of the West Midlands have higher unemployment than the North-West, but they are not assisted areas. It would be nonsense to make large parts of the West Midlands assisted areas. In fairness to that part of the country, the representations that we received did not call for that. The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East asked who had made representations to us and whether we had received councils.
Yes, we have seen councils, and, yes, we have seen Labour-controlled councils, and industrialists. However, when we put it to Labour-controlled councils that there was not a strong case for assisted area status for the West Midlands, they did not dissent. They wanted the end to discrimination against the West Midlands. That is why we have removed the IDCs that have been a restricting influence on that area. The councils wanted to be able to


compete fairly with other areas. How could we say that the West Midlands was able to do so when there were areas in the North-West for which Labour Members are advocating assisted area status even though they have lower rates of unemployment than the West Midlands?

Mr. Park: I do not know whether your minutes are faulty, or whether your hearing is faulty, but certainly on two occasions when I attended with delegations in your office—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I assure the hon. Gentleman that there is nothing wrong with my minutes.

Mr. Lamont: The hon. Gentleman did not attend when the West Midlands county council came to see me, or when I talked to the Birmingham chamber of commerce. I assure the House that what I have said reflects the true position.
Some scepticism has been expressed on both sides of the House about the effectiveness of regional policy, and there is every reason for this scepticism. It is a sobering thought that those areas which were assisted in the 1930s are the ones that are assisted today. What is our reaction to that to be? Is it simply to carry on with the same regional policies for ever? Our view is that regional policy, to be effective, needs to be sharpened, and it makes no sense, even in a deep recession, for half the country to be covered by assisted area status. That is not a regional policy, it is half a national policy, and not a very good one at that.
Regional policy needs to be more concentrated to become more effective. The changes that we have made will strengthen the relative position of the assisted areas. Labour Members have drawn attention to the differences in unemployment rates in the country in different regions. The object of regional policy is to narrow those gaps, but we must be realistic. All countries in Western Europe have differences in unemployment rates and it is my impression that the rates here are little different from those elsewhere. No one can say, when we are spending £800 million a year on regional policy, that regional policy does not have a high enough priority.
The right hon. Member for Stockton (Mr. Rodgers) drew attention to the absence of head offices and research and development facilities in the regions. I agree with the thrust of his remarks. One of the problems with regional policy is that we have placed too much emphasis on assistance to manufacturing industry, which has not been the growth area for employment opportunities. If the regions are to be redeveloped, we need more service industries, head offices and research and development facilities there. That is why the Government have put more emphasis on the Office and Service Industries Scheme. We believe that regional policy should be directed more towards service industries.
A number of hon. Members referred to the British Steel Corporation. The hon. Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie asked about Ravenscraig. The corporate plan that is in operation is based on the assumption that there will be no change in the configuration of the BSC, and no suggestion has been made to us that Ravenscraig should be closed.
It was predictable and understandable that a number of hon. Members should raise the question of the new "Atlantic Conveyor". I understand the strong feelings and

emotions that the issue arouses, though I deplore the language used by the right hon. Member for Salford, West. I am sure that he will regret it tomorrow.
The Government would certainly prefer the order to be placed in the United Kingdom. We are keeping in close touch with British Shipbuilders and with the situation. We give the company considerable assistance in obtaining orders. However, for that assistance to be effective British Shipbuilders must be competitive and come within striking distance of the prices of its competitors. Naturally, we note what has been said in the debate.
I agree substantially with the speech of the right hon. Member for Stockton, but it reminded me of what Harold Macmillan said about the Liberals—they had many sound and original ideas, but the trouble was that the original ideas were not sound and the sound ideas were not original.
The SDP has expressed its support for the loan guarantee scheme, the business start-up scheme and competition in the public sector. All that is sound, but not original. The right hon. Member for Stockton's plans for regional administration were original, but not sound. He outlined a plan for the revival of the Saxon kingdoms, with 12 regional authorities that would have taxing and spending powers. We have always heard that the SDP is an elitist party, but the right hon. Gentleman's ideas are irrelevant and of interest only to politicians and administrators.
The hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Wainwright) referred to the manufacturing production figures. Yesterday's figure of a 1½ per cent. increase on the May level is not one on which too much emphasis should be placed. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that we should not take one month's figure in isolation, but the May figure confirms that a gradual recovery is taking place. Manufacturing output is 2½ percent. above the level of last spring.
Whatever anxieties there may be about future demand, it is futile to think that we can expand our way out of recession faster than other countries, unless our rate of inflation is lower than that of other countries. We have made substantial progress in bringing down the rate of inflation, but it still remains higher than that of Japan and Germany. We intend to get our rate down to their level.

Mr. Richard Wainwright: The Secretary of State for Industry is paid to be a member of the National Economic Development Council, but in the 48 minutes of the House's time that he pre-empted to say nothing new, and to crowd out one of his own Back Benchers, he did not refer to the request of the director general of the NEDC that he be allowed to examine straight away the scope for an expansionary policy. Will the Minister of State say something about the Department's attitude to the NEDC request?

Mr. Lamont: I am sure that the request and any proposal from the director general of the NEDC will be considered and that there will be a response from the Government. Whatever the NEDC may say, the most important task is to get the rate of inflation down.
Labour Members seem to query the relevance to industry of reducing inflation, but that does matter to industry. We need lower inflation to get confidence for investment, to be competitive and to get lower interest rates.
The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East referred to what he called the crisis in developed countries. The level of interest rates is a cause of anxiety to business men all over the world. If anything, unprecedentedly high interest rates show that the world is suffering from excessive Government borrowing and high inflation that have undermined investors' confidence. After a decade in which inflation was three times that of the previous decade, it is hardly surprising that lenders and investors should be sceptical and cautious about whether inflation has come down permanently. If we can get inflation down and keep it down, companies can borrow at a fixed and controlled price. That is the path to faster growth and more jobs.
There are signs that we are making progress. Rates of interest have fallen by 4 per cent. since the beginning of the year. That is significant because the fall has occurred when international forces have been pushing up interest rates in other countries. Our lower interest rates have occurred because the Government have concentrated on the one factor within their control—their own borrowing. That policy has reduced our interest rates. If inflation falls, interest rates will fall and we shall reap a harvest of investment, growth and jobs. The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East said that the recession in Britain had been worse than elsewhere and the right hon. Member for Salford, West repeated that charge. But the hon. Gentleman made that assertion without acknowledging that British inflation at the beginning of the recession was much higher than in other countries. Our competitiveness was undermined for many years and we suffered from much concealed unemployment that has now come out into the open.
All that we hear from the Labour Party is that it will embark on the biggest programme of expansion that has ever been undertaken, regardless of the effects on inflation, on interest rates and on the balance of payments. The Labour Party seems to believe that, because a policy of high spending and expansion worked in the 1930s, it can work now, but there is a great difference between the position then and now. Then we were suffering from falling prices, whereas now we are living through a period of high inflation and the greatest threat to the world economy is that inflation will rise again.
The Opposition's proposals are similar to those now operated in France.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: Why do Icelandic conservatives say that it is possible to have high inflation and almost no unemployment and British Conservatives say that that is impossible?

Mr. Lamont: The Conservative Party has never based its policies on those of Icelandic conservatives.
The Opposition are advancing a prescription similar to that now being put into practice in France. The prescription is higher spending and the creation of more public sector jobs. I can think of nothing that Britain needs less than the creation of more public sector jobs. The public sector is already overmanned, and if we went down that road we should sacrifice all the gains that have been made in the past two or three years.
The Opposition's prescription will be no more successful in Britain than it was in France. The French policies have led to two devaluations, a 20 per cent. rise in unemployment and one of the highest inflation rates in

Europe. While our interest rates have fallen by 3 to 4 per cent. since the beginning of the year, France's has risen. We shall not find the solution to our problems if we follow the example of France.
The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East said many times that the Government have exaggerated the effect of high rates increases on business. It is astonishing that the hon. Gentleman should accuse us of not talking to business men. If he does not believe that high rates increases are greatly resented by business men, he has spent little time in his tours of the regions talking to business men.

Mr. Allen McKay: Would it surprise the Minister to know that two months ago the Engineering Employers Federation said that the recession was caused by high interest rates, high energy prices and the inflow of subsidised materials? It said that the effect of rates had little to do with the recession. Yet that is one of the employers to whom the Minister says we should talk.

Mr. Lamont: The Engineering Employers Federation said that, and we all agree about the need to reduce interest rates. However, that federation, together with the CBI and many chambers of commerce, stressed the absurdity of Labour-controlled councils in areas of high unemployment pushing up the rates and causing more unemployment.

Mr. Straw: rose—

Mr. Lamont: I shall not give way.
The Opposition chose not to dwell on their programme because they know that it is unpopular, anachronistic and irrelevant. They have chosen not to spell out their plans for the nationalisation of banks and for greater State control and ownership. It is intriguing that the Labour Party said that its programme must be combined with exchange controls against an inward flow of capital. Its problem will be an outflow, not an inflow, of capital.
All the ideas advanced by the Opposition parties will undermine our long-term competitiveness, increase inflation and lead to more unemployment. All that they offer is the atrophy of State ownership and control. Those ideas are widely regarded both in Britain and in the House as an obstacle to prosperity and opportunity. Competition and private ownership are ideas whose time has come. The Government were elected to bring about a decisive reversal of our long-term decline. We shall not be deflected from those policies just when they are bringing about a long-worked-for and hard-earned benefit. I urge my right hon. and hon. Friends to reject the Opposition motion and to vote in favour of the amendment standing in the names of my right hon. Friends.

Question put, That the original words stand part of the Question:—

The House divided: Ayes 216, Noes 330.

Division No. 275]
[10 pm


AYES


Abse, Leo
Bidwell, Sydney


Adams, Allen
Booth, Rt Hon Albert


Allaun, Frank
Boothroyd, Miss Betty


Anderson, Donald
Bottomley, Rt Hon A.(M'b'ro)


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Bray, Dr Jeremy


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Brown, Hugh D. (Proven)


Ashton, Joe
Brown, R. C. (N'castle W)


Atkinson, N.(H'gey,)
Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)


Bagier, Gordon A.T.
Buchan, Norman


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Callaghan, Rt Hon J.


Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (H'wd)
Callaghan, Jim (Midd't'n &amp; P)


Bennett, Andrew(St'kp't N)
Campbell, Ian






Campbell-Savours, Dale
Johnson, James (Hull West)


Canavan, Dennis
Jones, Rt Hon Alec (Rh'dda)


Cant, R. B.
Jones, Barry (East Flint)


Carmichael, Neil
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Kerr, Russell


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Kilfedder, James A.


Clarke, ThomasC'b'ge, A'drie
Kilroy-Silk, Robert


Cocks, Rt Hon M. (B'stol S)
Lambie, David


Cohen, Stanley
Lamond, James


Coleman, Donald
Leadbitter, Ted


Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.
Leighton, Ronald


Cook, Robin F.
Lestor, Miss Joan


Cowans, Harry
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)


Cox, T. (W'dsw'th, Toot'g)
Litherland, Robert


Craigen, J. M. (G'gow, M'hill)
Lofthouse, Geoffrey


Cryer, Bob
McCartney, Hugh


Cunliffe, Lawrence
McDonald, Dr Oonagh


Cunningham, Dr J. (W'h'n)
McElhone, Frank


Dalyell, Tarn
McGuire, Michael (Ince)


Davidson, Arthur
McKay, Allen (Penistone)


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (L'lli)
McKelvey, William


Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)
MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor


Davis, Terry (B'ham, Stechf'd)
McMahon, Andrew


Deakins, Eric
McNamara, Kevin


Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
McTaggart, Robert


Dewar, Donald
McWilliam, John


Dixon, Donald
Marks, Kenneth


Dobson, Frank
Marshall, D(G'gow S'ton)


Dormand, Jack
Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)


Douglas, Dick
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Dubs, Alfred
Martin, M(G'gow S'burn)


Duffy, A. E. P.
Mason, Rt Hon Roy


Dunnett, Jack
Maxton, John


Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.
Maynard, Miss Joan


Eadie, Alex
Meacher, Michael


Eastham, Ken
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce


Edwards, R. (W'hampt'n S E)
Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)


Ellis, R. (NE D'bysh're)
Mitchell, Austin (Grimsby)


English, Michael
Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)


Ennals, Rt Hon David
Morris, Rt Hon C. (O'shaw)


Evans, loan (Aberdare)
Moyle, Rt Hon Roland


Evans, John (Newton)
Newens, Stanley


Ewing, Harry
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Faulds, Andrew
O'Neill, Martin


Field, Frank
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Fitch, Alan
Palmer, Arthur


Flannery, Martin
Park, George


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Parker, John


Ford, Ben
Parry, Robert


Forrester, John
Pavitt, Laurie


Foulkes, George
Pendry, Tom


Fraser, J. (Lamb'th, N'w'd)
Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)


Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald
Prescott, John


Garrett, John (Norwich S)
Price, C. (Lewisham W)


Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)
Race, Reg


Golding, John
Radice, Giles


Gourlay, Harry
Rees, Rt Hon M (Leeds S)


Graham, Ted
Richardson, Jo


Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Hamilton, W. W. (C'tral Fife)
Roberts, Allan (Bootle)


Hardy, Peter
Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)


Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)


Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith
Robertson, George


Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)


Healey, Rt Hon Denis
Rooker, J. W.


Heffer, Eric S.
Ross, Ernest (Dundee West)


Hogg, N. (E Dunb't'nshire)
Rowlands, Ted


Holland, S. (L'b'th, Vauxh'll)
Ryman, John


Home Robertson, John
Sever, John


Homewood, William
Sheerman, Barry


Hooley, Frank
Sheldon, Rt Hon R.


Howell, Rt Hon D.
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Hoyle, Douglas
Short, Mrs Renée


Huckfield, Les
Silkin, Rt Hon J. (Deptford)


Hughes, Mark (Durham)
Silverman, Julius


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Skinner, Dennis


Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Smith, Rt Hon J. (N Lanark)


Janner, Hon Greville
Soley, Clive


Jay, Rt Hon Douglas
Spearing, Nigel


John, Brynmor
Spriggs, Leslie





Stallard, A. W.
Welsh, Michael


Stoddart, David
White, Frank R.


Stott, Roger
White, J. (G'gow Pollok)


Strang, Gavin
Whitlock, William


Straw, Jack
Wigley, Dafydd


Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley
Willey, Rt Hon Frederick


Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)
Williams, Rt Hon A.(S'sea W)


Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)
Wilson, Rt Hon Sir H.(H'ton)


Thorne, Stan (Preston South)
Wilson, William (C'try SE)


Tilley, John
Winnick, David


Tinn, James
Woodall, Alec


Torney, Tom
Woolmer, Kenneth


Urwin, Rt Hon Tom
Wright, Sheila


Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.
Young, David (Bolton E)


Wainwright, E.(Dearne V)



Walker, Rt Hon H.(D'caster)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Watkins, David
Mr. Frank Haynes and


Weetch, Ken
Mr. George Morton


NOES


Adley, Robert
Churchill, W. S.


Aitken, Jonathan
Clark, Hon A. (Plym'th, S'n)


Alexander, Richard
Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)


Alton, David
Clegg, Sir Walter


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Cockeram, Eric


Ancram, Michael
Colvin, Michael


Arnold, Tom
Cope, John


Aspinwall, Jack
Cormack, Patrick


Atkins, Rt Hon H.(S'thorne)
Corrie, John


Atkins, Robert(Preston N)
Costain, Sir Albert


Atkinson, David (B'm'th,E)
Cranborne, Viscount


Baker, Kenneth(St.M'bone)
Crawshaw, Richard


Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)
Critchley, Julian


Banks, Robert
Cunningham, G. (Islington S)


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Dickens, Geoffrey


Beith, A. J.
Dorrell, Stephen


Bendall, Vivian
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.


Bennett, Sir Frederic (T'bay)
Dover, Denshore


Benyon, Thomas (A'don)
du Cann, Rt Hon Edward


Benyon, W. (Buckingham)
Dunn, Robert (Dartford)


Best, Keith
Durant, Tony


Bevan, David Gilroy
Eden, Rt Hon Sir John


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)


Biggs-Davison, Sir John
Eggar, Tim


Blackburn, John
Elliott, Sir William


Blaker, Peter
Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)


Body, Richard
Eyre, Reginald


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Fairbairn, Nicholas


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Fairgrieve, Sir Russell


Bottomley, Peter (W'wich W)
Faith, Mrs Sheila


Bowden, Andrew
Farr, John


Boyson, Dr Rhodes
Fell, Sir Anthony


Bradley, Tom
Finsberg, Geoffrey


Braine, Sir Bernard
Fisher, Sir Nigel


Bright, Graham
Fletcher, A. (Ed'nb'gh N)


Brinton, Tim
Fletcher-Cooke, Sir Charles


Brittan, Rt. Hon. Leon
Fookes, Miss Janet


Brooke, Hon Peter
Forman, Nigel


Brotherton, Michael
Fowler, Rt Hon Norman


Brown, Michael(Brigg &amp; Sc'n)
Fox, Marcus


Brown, Ronald W. (H'ckn'y S)
Fraser, Rt Hon Sir Hugh


Browne, John (Winchester)
Fry, Peter


Bruce-Gardyne, John
Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)


Bryan, Sir Paul
Garel-Jones, Tristan


Buchanan-Smith, Rt. Hon. A.
Ginsburg, David


Buck, Antony
Glyn, Dr Alan


Budgen, Nick
Goodhart, Sir Philip


Bulmer, Esmond
Goodhew, Sir Victor


Burden, Sir Frederick
Goodlad, Alastair


Butcher, John
Gorst, John


Butler, Hon Adam
Gow, Ian


Cadbury, Jocelyn
Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)


Carlisle, John (Luton West)
Grant, John (Islington C)


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Gray, Hamish


Carlisle, Rt Hon M. (R'c'n)
Greenway, Harry


Cartwright, John
Griffiths, E.(B'y St. Edm'ds)


Chalker, Mrs. Lynda
Griffiths, Peter Portsm'th N)


Channon, Rt. Hon. Paul
Grimond, Rt Hon J.


Chapman, Sydney
Grist, Ian






Grylls, Michael
Monro, Sir Hector


Gummer, John Selwyn
Montgomery, Fergus


Hamilton, Hon A.
Moore, John


Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Morris, M. (N'hampton S)


Hampson, Dr Keith
Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)


Hannam, John
Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)


Haselhurst, Alan
Mudd, David


Hastings, Stephen
Murphy, Christopher


Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael
Myles, David


Hawkins, Sir Paul
Neale, Gerrard


Hawksley, Warren
Needham, Richard


Hayhoe, Barney
Nelson, Anthony


Heath, Rt Hon Edward
Neubert, Michael


Heddle, John
Newton, Tony


Henderson, Barry
Normanton, Tom


Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael
Nott, Rt Hon John


Hicks, Robert
O'Halloran, Michael


Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.
Onslow, Cranley


Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)
Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs S.


Holland, Philip (Carlton)
Osborn, John


Hooson, Tom
Page, John (Harrow, West)


Horam, John
Page, Richard (SW Herts)


Hordern, Peter
Parris, Matthew


Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Patten, John (Oxford)


Howell, Rt Hon D. (G'ldf'd)
Pattie, Geoffrey


Howell, Ralph (N Norfolk)
Pawsey, James


Howells, Geraint
Penhaligon, David


Hunt, David (Wirral)
Percival, Sir Ian


Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)
Peyton, Rt Hon John


Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas
Pink, R. Bonner


Irvine, Bryant Godman
Pitt, William Henry


Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)
Pollock, Alexander


Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick
Porter, Barry


Jenkins, Rt Hon Roy (Hillh'd)
Prentice, Rt Hon Reg


Jessel, Toby
Price, Sir David (Eastleigh)


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Prior, Rt Hon James


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Proctor, K. Harvey


Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine
Pym, Rt Hon Francis


Kershaw, Sir Anthony
Raison, Rt Hon Timothy


Kimball, Sir Marcus
Rathbone, Tim


King, Rt Hon Tom
Rees, Peter (Dover and Deal)


Knight, Mrs Jill
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Knox, David
Renton, Tim


Lamont, Norman
Rhodes James, Robert


Lang, Ian
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Latham, Michael
Ridley, Hon Nicholas


Lawrence, Ivan
Ridsdale, Sir Julian


Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel
Rifkind, Malcolm


Lee, John
Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Roberts, M. (Cardiff NW)


Lester, Jim (Beeston)
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)


Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Rodgers, Rt Hon William


Lloyd, Ian (Havant &amp; W'loo)
Roper, John


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)


Loveridge, John
Rossi, Hugh


Luce, Richard
Rost, Peter


Lyell, Nicholas
Royle, Sir Anthony


Lyons, Edward (Bradf'd W)
Rumbold, Mrs A. C. R.


Macfarlane, Neil
Sainsbury, Hon Timothy


MacGregor, John
Scott, Nicholas


MacKay, John (Argyll)
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


Maclennan, Robert
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


Macmillan, Rt Hon M.
Shelton, William (Streatham)


McNair-Wilson, M. (N'bury)
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


McNair-Wilson, P. (New F'st)
Shepherd, Richard


Madel, David
Shersby, Michael


Magee, Bryan
Silvester, Fred


Major, John
Sims, Roger


Marland, Paul
Skeet, T. H. H.


Marten, Rt Hon Neil
Smith, Dudley


Maude, Rt Hon Sir Angus
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Mawby, Ray
Speed, Keith


Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Speller, Tony


Mellor, David
Spence, John


Meyer, Sir Anthony
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Miller, Hal (B'grove)
Sproat, Iain


Mills, Iain (Meriden)
Squire, Robin


Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)
Stainton, Keith


Miscampbell, Norman
Stanbrook, Ivor


Moate, Roger
Stanley, John





Steel, Rt Hon David
Walker, Rt Hon P.(W'cester)


Steen, Anthony
Walker, B. (Perth)


Stewart, A.(E Renfrewshire)
Waller, Gary


Stewart, Rt Hon D. (W Isles)
Walters, Dennis


Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)
Ward, John


Stokes, John
Warren, Kenneth


Stradling Thomas, J.
Watson, John


Tapsell, Peter
Wellbeloved, James


Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)
Wells, Bowen


Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Temple-Morris, Peter
Wheeler, John


Thatcher, Rt Hon Mrs M.
Whitelaw, Rt Hon William


Thomas, Rt Hon Peter
Whitney, Raymond


Thompson, Donald
Wickenden, Keith


Thorne, Neil (Ilford South)
Wiggin, Jerry


Thornton, Malcolm
Wilkinson, John


Townend, John (Bridlington)
Williams, D.(Montgomery)


Townsend, Cyril D, (B'heath)
Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)


Trippier, David
Winterton, Nicholas


Trotter, Neville
Wolfson, Mark


van Straubenzee, Sir W.
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Vaughan, Dr Gerard
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Viggers, Peter
Younger, Rt Hon George


Waddington, David



Wainwright, R.(Colne V)
Tellers for the Noes:


Wakeham, John
Mr. Anthony Berry and


Waldegrave, Hon William
Mr. Carol Mather.

Question accordingly negatived.

Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 32 (Questions on amendments):—

The House divided: Ayes 300, Noes 246.

Division No. 276]
[10.13 pm


AYES


Adley, Robert
Budgen, Nick


Aitken, Jonathan
Bulmer, Esmond


Alexander, Richard
Burden, Sir Frederick


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Butcher, John


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Butler, Hon Adam


Ancram, Michael
Cadbury, Jocelyn


Arnold, Tom
Carlisle, John (Luton West)


Aspinwall, Jack
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)


Atkins, Rt Hon H.(S'thorne)
Carlisle, Rt Hon M. (R'c'n)


Atkins, Robert(Preston N)
Chalker, Mrs. Lynda


Atkinson, David (B'm'th,E)
Channon, Rt. Hon. Paul


Baker, Kenneth(St.M'bone)
Chapman, Sydney


Baker, Nicholas (N Corset)
Churchill, W. S.


Banks, Robert
Clark, Hon A. (Plym'th, S'n)


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)


Bendall, Vivian
Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)


Bennett, Sir Frederic (T'bay)
Clegg, Sir Walter


Benyon, Thomas (A'don)
Cockeram, Eric


Benyon, W. (Buckingham)
Colvin, Michael


Best, Keith
Cope, John


Bevan, David Gilroy
Cormack, Patrick


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Corrie, John


Biggs-Davison, Sir John
Costain, Sir Albert


Blackburn, John
Cranborne, Viscount


Blaker, Peter
Critchley, Julian


Body, Richard
Dickens, Geoffrey


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Dorrell, Stephen


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.


Bottomley, Peter (W'wich W)
Dover, Denshore


Bowden, Andrew
du Cann, Rt Hon Edward


Boyson, Dr Rhodes
Dunn, Robert (Dartford)


Braine, Sir Bernard
Durant, Tony


Bright, Graham
Eden, Rt Hon Sir John


Brinton, Tim
Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)


Brittan, Rt. Hon. Leon
Eggar, Tim


Brooke, Hon Peter
Elliott, Sir William


Brotherton, Michael
Eyre, Reginald


Brown, Michael(Brigg &amp; Sc'n)
Fairbairn, Nicholas


Browne, John (Winchester)
Fairgrieve, Sir Russell


Bruce-Gardyne, John
Faith, Mrs Sheila


Bryan, Sir Paul
Farr, John


Buchanan-Smith, Rt. Hon. A.
Fell, Sir Anthony


Buck, Antony
Finsberg, Geoffrey






Fisher, Sir Nigel
McNair-Wilson, M. (N'bury)


Fletcher, A. (Ed'nb'gh N)
McNair-Wilson, P. (New F'st)


Fletcher-Cooke, Sir Charles
Madel, David


Fookes, Miss Janet
Major, John


Forman, Nigel
Marland, Paul


Fowler, Rt Hon Norman
Marten, Rt Hon Neil


Fox, Marcus
Maude, Rt Hon Sir Angus


Fraser, Rt Hon Sir Hugh
Mawby, Ray


Fry, Peter
Mawhinney, Dr Brian


Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)
Mellor, David


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Glyn, Dr Alan
Miller, Hal (B'grove)


Goodhart, Sir Philip
Mills, Iain (Meriden)


Goodlad, Alastair
Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)


Gorst, John
Miscampbell, Norman


Gow, Ian
Moate, Roger


Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)
Monro, Sir Hector


Gray, Hamish
Montgomery, Fergus


Greenway, Harry
Moore, John


Griffiths, E.(B'y St. Edm'ds)
Morris, M. (N'hampton S)


Griffiths, Peter Portsm'th N)
Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)


Grist, Ian
Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)


Grylls, Michael
Mudd, David


Gummer, John Selwyn
Murphy, Christopher


Hamilton, Hon A.
Myles, David


Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Neale, Gerrard


Hampson, Dr Keith
Needham, Richard


Hannam, John
Nelson, Anthony


Haselhurst, Alan
Neubert, Michael


Hastings, Stephen
Newton, Tony


Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael
Normanton, Tom


Hawkins, Sir Paul
Nott, Rt Hon John


Hawksley, Warren
Onslow, Cranley


Hayhoe, Barney
Osborn, John


Heath, Rt Hon Edward
Page, John (Harrow, West)


Heddle, John
Page, Richard (SW Herts)


Henderson, Barry
Parris, Matthew


Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael
Patten, John (Oxford)


Hicks, Robert
Pattie, Geoffrey


Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.
Pawsey, James


Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)
Percival, Sir Ian


Holland, Philip (Carlton)
Peyton, Rt Hon John


Hooson, Tom
Pink, R. Bonner


Hordern, Peter
Pollock, Alexander


Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Porter, Barry


Howell, Rt Hon D. (G'ldf'd)
Prentice, Rt Hon Reg


Howell, Ralph (N Norfolk)
Price, Sir David (Eastleigh)


Hunt, David (Wirral)
Prior, Rt Hon James


Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)
Proctor, K. Harvey


Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas
Pym, Rt Hon Francis


Irvine, Bryant Godman
Raison, Rt Hon Timothy


Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)
Rathbone, Tim


Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick
Rees, Peter (Dover and Deal)


Jessel, Toby
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Renton, Tim


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Rhodes James, Robert


Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Kershaw, Sir Anthony
Ridley, Hon Nicholas


Kimball, Sir Marcus
Ridsdale, Sir Julian


King, Rt Hon Tom
Rifkind, Malcolm


Knight, Mrs Jill
Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey


Knox, David
Roberts, M. (Cardiff NW)


Lamont, Norman
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)


Lang, Ian
Rossi, Hugh


Latham, Michael
Rost, Peter


Lawrence, Ivan
Royle, Sir Anthony


Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel
Rumbold, Mrs A. C. R.


Lee, John
Sainsbury, Hon Timothy


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon N.


Lester, Jim (Beeston)
Scott, Nicholas


Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


Lloyd, Ian (Havant &amp; W'loo)
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Shelton, William (Streatham)


Loveridge, John
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Luce, Richard
Shepherd, Richard


Lyell, Nicholas
Shersby, Michael


Macfarlane, Neil
Silvester, Fred


MacGregor, John
Sims, Roger


MacKay, John (Argyll)
Skeet, T. H. H.


Macmillan, Rt Hon M.
Smith, Dudley





Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)
Vaughan, Dr Gerard


Speed, Keith
Viggers, Peter


Speller, Tony
Waddington, David


Spence, John
Wakeham, John


Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)
Waldegrave, Hon William


Sproat, Iain
Walker, Rt Hon P.(W'cester)


Squire, Robin
Walker, B. (Perth)


Stainton, Keith
Waller, Gary


Stanbrook, Ivor
Walters, Dennis


Stanley, John
Ward, John


Steen, Anthony
Warren, Kenneth


Stewart, A.(E Renfrewshire)
Watson, John


Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)
Wells, Bowen


Stokes, John
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Stradling Thomas, J.
Wheeler, John


Tapsell, Peter
Whitelaw, Rt Hon William


Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)
Whitney, Raymond


Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman
Wickenden, Keith


Temple-Morris, Peter
Wiggin, Jerry


Thatcher, Rt Hon Mrs M.
Wilkinson, John


Thomas, Rt Hon Peter
Williams, D.(Montgomery)


Thompson, Donald
Winterton, Nicholas


Thorne, Neil (Ilford South)
Wolfson, Mark


Thornton, Malcolm
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Townend, John (Bridlington)
Younger, Rt Hon George


Townsend, Cyril D, (B'heath)



Trippier, David
Tellers for the Ayes:


Trotter, Neville
Mr. Anthony Berry and


van Straubenzee, Sir W.
Mr. Carol Mather.


NOES


Abse, Leo
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (L'lli)


Adams, Allen
Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)


Allaun, Frank
Davis, Terry (B'ham, Stechf'd)


Alton, David
Deakins, Eric


Anderson, Donald
Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Dewar, Donald


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Dixon, Donald


Ashton, Joe
Dobson, Frank


Atkinson, N.(H'gey,)
Dormand, Jack


Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (H'wd)
Douglas, Dick


Beith, A. J.
Dubs, Alfred


Bennett, Andrew(St'kp't N)
Duffy, A. E. P.


Bidwell, Sydney
Dunnett, Jack


Booth, Rt Hon Albert
Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.


Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Eadie, Alex


Bottomley, Rt Hon A.(M'b'ro)
Eastham, Ken


Bradley, Tom
Edwards, R. (W'hampt'n S E)


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Ellis, R. (NE D'bysh're)


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)


Brown, R. C. (N'castle W)
English, Michael


Brown, Ronald W. (H'ckn'y S)
Ennals, Rt Hon David


Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)
Evans, loan (Aberdare)


Buchan, Norman
Evans, John (Newton)


Callaghan, Rt Hon J.
Ewing, Harry


Callaghan, Jim (Midd't'n &amp; P)
Faulds, Andrew


Campbell, Ian
Field, Frank


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Fitch, Alan


Canavan, Dennis
Flannery, Martin


Cant, R. B.
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)


Carmichael, Neil
Ford, Ben


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Forrester, John


Cartwright, John
Foulkes, George


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald


Clarke,Thomas(C'b'dge, A'rie)
Garrett, John (Norwich S)


Cocks, Rt Hon M. (B'stol S)
Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)


Cohen, Stanley
Ginsburg, David


Coleman, Donald
Golding, John


Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.
Gourlay, Harry


Cook, Robin F.
Graham, Ted


Cowans, Harry
Grant, John (Islington C)


Cox, T. (W'dsw'th, Toot'g)
Grimond, Rt Hon J.


Craigen, J. M. (G'gow, M'hill)
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)


Crawshaw, Richard
Hamilton, W. W. (C'tral Fife)


Cryer, Bob
Hardy, Peter


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Harrison, Rt Hon Walter


Cunningham, G. (Islington S)
Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith


Cunningham, Dr J. (W'h'n)
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy


Dalyell, Tam
Healey, Rt Hon Denis


Davidson, Arthur
Heffer, Eric S.






Hogg, N. (E Dunb't'nshire)
Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)


Holland, S. (L'b'th, Vauxh'll)
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Home Robertson, John
Martin, M(G'gow S'burn)


Homewood, William
Mason, Rt Hon Roy


Hooley, Frank
Maxton, John


Horam, John
Maynard, Miss Joan


Howell, Rt Hon D.
Meacher, Michael


Howells, Geraint
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce


Hoyle, Douglas
Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)


Huckfield, Les
Mitchell, Austin (Grimsby)


Hughes, Mark (Durham)
Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Morris, Rt Hon C. (O'shaw)


Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Morton, George


Janner, Hon Greville
Moyle, Rt Hon Roland


Jay, Rt Hon Douglas
Newens, Stanley


Jenkins, Rt Hon Roy (Hillh'd)
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


John, Brynmor
O'Halloran, Michael


Johnson, James (Hull West)
O'Neill, Martin


Jones, Rt Hon Alec (Rh'dda)
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Jones, Barry (East Flint)
Owen, Rt Hon Dr David


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Paisley, Rev Ian


Kerr, Russell
Palmer, Arthur


Kilfedder, James A.
Park, George


Kilroy-Silk, Robert
Parker, John


Lambie, David
Parry, Robert


Lamond, James
Pavitt, Laurie


Leadbitter, Ted
Pendry, Tom


Leighton, Ronald
Penhaligon, David


Lestor, Miss Joan
Pitt, William Henry


Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)


Litherland, Robert
Prescott, John


Lofthouse, Geoffrey
Price, C. (Lewisham W)


Lyons, Edward (Bradf'd W)
Race, Reg


McDonald, Dr Oonagh
Radice, Giles


McElhone, Frank
Rees, Rt Hon M (Leeds S)


McGuire, Michael (Ince)
Richardson, Jo


McKay, Allen (Penistone)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


McKelvey, William
Roberts, Allan (Bootle)


MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor
Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)


McMahon, Andrew
Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)


McNamara, Kevin
Robertson, George


McTaggart, Robert
Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)


McWilliam, John
Rodgers, Rt Hon William


Magee, Bryan
Rooker, J. W.


Marks, Kenneth
Roper, John


Marshall, D(G'gow S'ton)
Ross, Ernest (Dundee West)





Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)
Torney, Tom


Rowlands, Ted
Urwin, Rt Hon Tom


Ryman, John
Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.


Sever, John
Wainwright, E.(Dearne V)


Sheerman, Barry
Wainwright, R.(Colne V)


Sheldon, Rt Hon R.
Walker, Rt Hon H.(D'caster)


Shore, Rt Hon Peter
Watkins, David


Short, Mrs Renée
Weetch, Ken


Silkin, Rt Hon J. (Deptford)
Wellbeloved, James


Silverman, Julius
Welsh, Michael


Skinner, Dennis
White, Frank R.


Smith, Rt Hon J. (N Lanark)
White, J. (G'gow Pollok)


Soley, Clive
Whitlock, William


Spearing, Nigel
Wigley, Dafydd


Spriggs, Leslie
Willey, Rt Hon Frederick


Stallard, A. W.
Williams, Rt Hon A.(S'sea W)


Steel, Rt Hon David
Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)


Stewart, Rt Hon D. (W Isles)
Wilson, Rt Hon Sir H.(H'ton)


Stoddart, David
Wilson, William (C'try SE)


Stott, Roger
Winnick, David


Strang, Gavin
Woodall, Alec


Straw, Jack
Woolmer, Kenneth


Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)
Young, David (Bolton E)


Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)



Thorne, Stan (Preston South)
Tellers for the Noes:


Tilley, John
Mr. Frank Haynes and


Tinn, James
Mr. Hugh McCartney.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.

Resolved,
That this House, whilst sharing the deep concern for the unemployed, recognises that today's unemployment reflects a loss of competitiveness over many years as well as the effect of the world recession; supports Her Majesty's Government in their objective of creating conditions in which all parts of the country can prosper; further supports Her Majesty's Government in concentrating their regional industrial policy in the areas of greatest need; and rejects the proposals of Her Majesty's Official Opposition as leading only to higher inflation and more unemployment.

Orders of the Day — Northern Ireland (Industrial Development)

The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. Adam Butler): I beg to move,
That the draft Industrial Development (Northern Ireland) Order 1982, which was laid before this House on 17 June, be approved.
If I needed extra confidence to commend this draft order to the House, I could take it from the fact that the proposals that it represents have been subjected to a high degree of outside scrutiny throughout most of their development. After the outline of the Industrial Development Board, which the order establishes, was put forward by the then Secretary of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Atkins), in August last year, as part of his proposals to streamline the machinery of government in Northern Ireland, it was first subjected under my chairmanship to the expert attentions of the steering group composed of Mr. Colin Anderson, Mr. Ken Bloomfield, Sir Charles Carter, Mr. Denis Faulkner and Mr. Eric McDowell, who elaborated the original plans into a detailed blueprint with great skill and judgment. I would like to thank them all again tonight.
While the group deliberated, there were numerous consultations with interested outside bodies, and then, in the form of a proposal for the present draft order, the design for the IDB was twice considered by the Northern Ireland Committee of the House. I think I may say that, in the Committee's debate, there was a large measure of agreement that we had put forward a plan for a new industrial development body that had all the characteristics sought for it by public opinion, consistent with the need for public and parliamentary accountability. The substance of the plan lies not only in the order; it is also to be found and amplified in the guidelines, to be issued by the Government to the board of the IDB elaborating the framework for the organisation's activities.
I dwelt in depth in our debates in the Northern Ireland Committee on the history and rationale of the present proposals, and I do not think that the House would want me to recapitulate them in great detail today. The proposals involve the creation of a new Department of Economic Development which will embrace and continue the functions of the present Departments of Commerce and Manpower Services, and of which the executive of the IDB will be an important arm.
The advantages of a unified industrial development organisation in place of the two existing institutions—the industrial development divisions of the Department of Commerce and the Northern Ireland Development Agency—were clear enough to us; but we have not sought to carry the principle of unification so far as to take in with the IDB the Local Enterprise Development Unit. LEDU is performing a most valuable role in the development of the small business sector and whilst it will co-operate closely with the IDB we believe that it will continue to meet best the special requirements of small business if it continues as a separate entity.
To set the IDB's executive arm within a Government Department was to recognise the realities of industrial development in Northern Ireland. The amounts of money

involved, both in individual cases and as a proportion of the total Northern Ireland budget, would alone dictate close accountability to Parliament, the more so since it is often paid out in large, and sometimes controversial, packages of assistance which inevitably involve an element of risk. Moreover, consideration of industrial development cases so often hinges on social decisions of the type that only a Minister responsible to Parliament, or to an elected Assembly, can properly make. At the same time we were aware—indeed, we were constantly reminded—that a body with some independence from Government—independence both of action and of outlook—could have advantages. We were aware that it was likely to make case decisions on the foundations of hard-headed commercial judgment, that it would apply a consistent set of criteria in such decisions, that it could move more swiftly than a body encumbered by bureaucracy, and that generally it would behave in a businesslike way.
We therefore created the design that is set out in the order and is more fully defined in the draft of the detailed guidelines that we propose to issue to the board when it formally assumes office.
The executive arm of the IDB will be within the new Department. The board's statutory role will be to advise and oversee it. Both will operate within a framework of broad policy prescriptions set out by Ministers. The draft guidelines now circulated incorporate a clear statement of the policy under which they will operate. Of course the views offered by the board on policy issues will be a major determinant of any revision that Ministers decide upon. On the implementation of policy, and in its application to individual requests for industrial development assistance, the board will advise the executive, and oversee the executive's work. For the most part, as the guidelines make clear, the board's advice will be for action by the executive without Ministers having to pronounce on it.
The board and executive will operate as a single unit with its own distinct identity. Ministers' ultimate answerability for the actions of their Departments obviously rules out any guarantee of non-intervention, but we firmly intend to give all possible weight to the commercial expertise that we are assembling among the board members. It would make no sense to do otherwise. In practice, we shall be putting much responsibility on the chairman and the rest of the board members and the executive. In general, Ministers' active involvement will be limited to two sorts of cases—when the social factors that I mentioned earlier are to the fore, and when specified large sums are involved. In those cases, of course, the board will still make recommendations that will carry much authority, but Ministers will have to address wider questions that are outside the board's special competence. The financial limits that we have proposed have been welcomed by most observers as sensible and as permitting sufficient freedom of action. Without the prior approval of the Department of Finance and Personnel being sought, the IDB will be able to provide to any company up to £3 million in selective financial assistance for projects that create employment, plus possibly an equity stake of up to £2 million, the appropriate level of training assistance, and the lease of an advance factory. That will provide the organisation with considerable flexibility and effective autonomy over a wide range of cases.
The IDB is an organisation of novel design. It incorporates the best features of the private sector in a


public sector organisation. The draft guidelines set out how Ministers expect the organisation to operate and make it clear that the board and executive of the IDB will work as a cohesive unit. While the executive will be an integral part of the Department of Economic Development, it will have its own clear executive responsibilities, for which the chief executive of the IDB will be accountable. We shall make clear the importance of co-operation in the areas of shared concern. The permanent secretary of the Department will provide resources and services that will take much of the time-consuming and bureaucratic work off the back of the IDB to free its energies for its main executive tasks. He will not be there to second-guess the judgment of the chief executive in commercial matters.
Some concern has been expressed about the possibility of duplication between the IDB and the rest of the Department and the possible trespassing of the permanent secretary on the domain of the chief executive, but their two roles are clear. The two parts of the Department have a mutual interest in improving the economic well-being of the Province and they will work closely together. The chief executive of the IDB, however, will have clear responsibility for industrial development and, significantly, will be accountable for expenditure of public moneys under certain Votes. On matters involving industrial development, Ministers—where they are brought in—will look directly to the executive for advice.
I hope that what I have told the House so far shows that our design for the new organisation is far more than a cosmetic rejigging of the present system. It is a thoroughgoing reconstruction—the product of much new thinking. This is particularly the case with the staffing of the organisation. We have not ignored the excellent staff resources that we already have, both in the Department of Commerce and in the Northern Ireland Development Agency.
They will be the backbone of the new organisation, but their wide-ranging experience will be supplemented by the appointment of high calibre staff from outside the central Government machine. Most of the new people will come in on secondment and I am glad to pay tribute to the generous way in which the private sector has offered us staff. Others will come in on short-term contracts.

Sir John Biggs-Davison: Does that mean that there will be an increase, and not a saving, in staff?

Mr. Butler: Taking the Northern Ireland Development Agency and the present divisions of the Department of Commerce involved in industrial development work—the two areas being brought together—I assure my hon. Friend that there will be an overall saving in staff, including those coming in from the private sector, whether on secondment or on short-term contracts.
The most crucial post, of course, will be that of the chief executive. In debates in Committee and elsewhere I did not hide the fact that I should have preferred the appointment to be made at an earlier stage, but I can now say that we were right to wait. As hon. Members may know, we announced late last last month the appointment of Mr. Saxon Tate as chief executive. From his most impressive background in industry he will bring to the IDB qualities that we may expect will greatly enhance its performance. He will undoubtedly want to impose his own

stamp on the IDB, its organisation and its working methods. I believe that the structure so far drawn up will be sufficiently flexible to permit him to do so.
As for membership of the board, I have made it clear that the criteria of appointment will be experience and expertise. There will be no representatives of outside interests as such, but only private individuals, chosen for the personal contribution that they can make. We have been very pleased to secure the services of those so far designated as prospective board members. Already they are meeting under the chairmanship of Sir Desmond Lorimer to gear up the new organisation for its formal takeover—subject to the approval of Parliament—on 1 September.
In the debates in the Northern Ireland Committee I was impressed by the feeling of a number of hon. Members that trade union experience was sufficiently valuable to an organisation of this sort to require two such members for the board rather than the one that I had originally proposed. After discussing this and other issues with the Northern Ireland Committee of the Irish Congress, I have accepted that view and I am pleased to say that two trade unionists have now been appointed to the board—Mr. John Freeman and Mr. Pat McCartan. Like other board members, of course, they will serve as individuals and certainly will not be subject to any kind of mandate.
The guidelines are, as I have indicated, critical in setting the tone of the new body. We have circulated a draft for comments among a wide range of interested people, including hon. Members on the Northern Ireland Committee—copies are in the Vote Office—and have had many views on them, which we are still assessing. There was some feeling among respondents that the guidelines suggested that the board and executive were to be distinct entities, whereas our intention was, of course, just the reverse. They should be perceived as a unitary role. We shall be looking at the presentation of this in finalising the guidelines, which will still, of course, have to reflect the scheme of the order, where the distinction is necessarily made.
A number of people have also properly sought clarification about what we mean when we talk about the IDB acting "commercially". In a sense the word covers two separate points. First, it is intended to convey that the IDB will be run along businesslike lines and that it will be as free as possible from the constraints of bureaucracy. Secondly, it also refers to what we see as the need for the IDB to take "commercial" decisions about individual cases.
I accept that that is a dificult concept to be put into operation by a body which is providing grants—an act which, in itself, may be regarded by some as being the antithesis of commercial operation. Certainly the IDB cannot adopt the same criterion of commerciality in looking for a financial return on that grant as might, for example, a merchant bank in seeking a return on its investments.
The return on a grant cannot come in the form of a pecuniary dividend—it must be measured more in terms of the creation of lasting jobs in viable operations. It is that word "viable" which I regard as crucial and which, in this context, is the test of commerciality. It should be the aim of the IDB to provide assistance to companies only where it is satisfied that following the one-off injection of such assistance the company will be capable of standing on its own feet without further special subsidy. Put another way,


it should be reasonable to suppose that the non-Government or private investment, reduced as it is by the provision of grant aid, will generate an adequate commercial return. When loans on equity are involved, again the IDB will need to apply the test of viability.
I accept that some judgment may be exercised in determining viability and it may be that the IDB would be justified, given the state of the Northern Ireland economy, in accepting a rather slower build-up to viability than might be expected by other commercial institutions.
I have set out the substance of our plans for the new organisation. I should like to turn for a few minutes to the detail of the draft order. Article 3 sets up the board, and in schedule 1 is prescribed its constitution. Article 4 provides for the ambit of the IDB to be set. The powers of selective assistance in part III obviously cover the mainstream of the IDB's work: but it will have many related activities, such as overseas promotion, provision of sites and factories, trade support and marketing assistance.
Article 5 sets out the functions of the board, and provides authority for the issue to the board of the directions which are the principal element in the guidelines. Article 6 deals with reports and accounts. Of particular note is article 6(2), which entitles the board, if it wishes, to a statement of reasons for publication in its annual report where its advice is not followed in a particular case. The article also makes clear the Comptroller and Auditor-General's role in the IDB's affairs.
As for the rest of the draft order, for the first time all the powers of industrial development, at present scattered among half a dozen or so statutes, have been brought together with amendments and repeals to produce a single, coherent and up-to-date code. They are vested in the Department of which the executive is an integral part.
Article 7 will be the main power under which the IDB will provide assistance to companies for creating and maintaining or safeguarding employment. It also embraces powers at present accorded to the Northern Ireland Development Agency to provide loans or loan guarantees and to make investments but, as in Great Britain, shares or stock will be provided only as a last resort, with the company's consent, and where no other form of assistance is appropriate. Article 8 includes the general industrial development powers of NIDA, which will enable the IDB to establish, carry on and develop industrial undertakings, to give advice to companies, and so on.
Article 9 amends existing powers to extend the range of circumstances in which assistance can be provided to encourage companies to undertake research and development work and in the marketing of their products. The article will also enable the IBA to assist appropriate scientific research and further the dissemination and practical application in industry of such research. We view that change as most helpful to the generation of research and development work in the Province, and hope that it will attract such work from outside.
Article 10 will give the IDB powers for acquiring and developing land and providing factories. There is a new provision to enable the IDB to make agreements with others to develop land for industrial use, thus encouraging greater private sector involvement in these functions, which I think can only be beneficial.
Article 11 requires the IDB to take account of the needs of different parts of Northern Ireland, for example enabling higher levels of assistance to be paid in areas of highest unemployment. It also contains an amendment, similar to one recently made in Great Britain, requiring the IDB to promote private ownership of interests in industrial undertakings, by disposing of its own interests.
Article 13 covers a miscellany of general powers by which the IDB will be able to publicise its activities, carry out research and assist visits to the Province by potential investors.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: In outlining the articles, the Minister has in each case prefaced his statements with the words "the board". The order actually speaks of the Department. Is the board an integral part of the Department?

Mr. Butler: Where I have used the words "the board", I have done so to distinguish it. As the right hon. Gentleman is aware, this is an advisory board to the executive. It may be that on occasion I have used the IDB as a term that embraces both the board and the Executive. However, in the earlier part of my speech, I made a distinction between the two, and, where necessary, included reference to both the board and the executive.

Mr. Powell: I apologise for interrupting the Minister again. Article 8 deals with the carrying on or establishment of industrial undertakings, but in that case the Minister said "the board" instead of "the Department". Who will carry on these undertakings? Will it be the Department through the executive or the board? I think that the Minister said the board.

Mr. Butler: Obviously I would need to check back to see whether I said the board. In fact, the Department, of which the executive is an integral part, will have these powers, because the advisory board will not have powers by statute other than to advise and to oversee the work of the executive. I apologise to the right hon. Gentleman and the House if I made a slip, but he has allowed me to make it absolutely clear. He was right to read from the order and to draw attention to an important and vital feature of it.
Part IV of the order—articles 16 to 25—consolidates existing legislation on the standard capital grant scheme. A few useful amendments have been introduced, including a broadening of the definition of a computer, so that grants can be provided to qualifying industrial companies for such items as word processors and microcomputers, which were previously ineligible. This seems a most appropriate change, coming as it does in information technology year.
In future, the range of industrial activities qualifying for standard capital grants will be open to amendment by statutory rule in a manner similar to the regional development grant provisions in Great Britain.
Part V of the order, articles 26 to 29, re-enacts the existing provisions about the industrial enterprise fund. This fund has proved over many years to be a useful way of giving small amounts of assistance to deserving projects falling outside the criteria of the main assistance schemes set out in this order.
Part VI of the order is largely devoted to miscellaneous and supplementary provisions, but I might single out article 30, one of the purposes of which is to give authority for the continued funding of the Local Enterprise Development Unit.
One never knows on these occasions quite how much to put into a speech on a subject that has been debated in Committee, but I feel that it was appropriate to cover in some detail what the order provides, because some right hon. and hon. Members will not have been privy to our proceedings before. Therefore, I have spoken with some speed, but I hope that what I have said has been intelligible.
I have been talking about our proposals for the IDB. I should like to say again that they envisage an organisation which, although within the ultimate responsibility of Ministers, will have a clear identity of its own, and a high degree of commercial freedom in its day-to-day affairs. I am sure that these proposals represent a significant advance. The IDB's work, we all recognise, is of vital importance. There are no organisational panaceas for Northern Ireland's problems. It has a daunting task, but potentially a rewarding one. It is a formidable task and the IDB will need support from all quarters in Northern Ireland. Now that this organisation and our intentions as to how it will operate are more widely known, I am confident that it will receive that support. I commend the order to the House.

Mr. J. D. Concannon: This is a short debate and I shall not, after two sittings in Committee, follow through the lines of the order as we did then. Furthermore, we have the Appropriation debate on Friday and some of the things that we might have wanted to cover in a debate such as this can be forgone until Friday.
The Opposition welcome the idea of the IDB, and recognise the difficult and demanding job done by the board, the chief executive and the Minister. Whatever is in the draft order and the guidelines, I am satisfied that at the end of the day it is the Minister who has the most important part to play in putting the order into effect.
The Government have presided over the destruction of jobs to the extent that there is now unemployment of more than 20 per cent. overall in Northern Ireland, and 40 per cent. in the towns. The decimation of whole industries has created a lack of confidence in Northern Ireland that will be difficult to retrieve. The IDB will have to direct much of its energies into developing confidence again for some time.
I visited Northern Ireland last week and was expecting in my naive way that, after all our efforts in the House, I should be talking about devolved powers in Northern Ireland or about security. I found to my surprise that nobody wanted to talk about them, as they are "back numbers". The only topics of conversation were the unemployment rate and the lack of jobs.
I found a lack of will, because the commitment had gone, and an acceptance of what was happening. If an unemployment rate such as that existed in my constituency, I assure those hon. Gentlemen who were absent last night that I should have been here looking after my 40 per cent. unemployed to see that they got back the 5 per cent. abatement that was pinched off them by the Government. Many of the unemployed in Northern Ireland will want to know why their Members of Parliament were not here last night to look after their interests.
If the IDB is to work, and it must work, it will have to remove the air of gloom and despondency, not only from the people of Northern Ireland but from those who have the unenviable job of selling Northern Ireland abroad.
I met the chairman, Sir Desmond Lorimer, and other members of the board and I think that they know what has to be done. It seems that the Minister has brought together an excellent group of members. As we say in north Nottinghamshire, they are ready to give it a go.
I am particularly glad that the Minister agreed to our plea that two trade union representatives should be appointed to the board. I know that he has appointed them as individuals, but I think that they will be invaluable, just as they have been to NIDA. When the Minister is talking to industrialists and entrepreneurs around the world he will find that the help and assistance given by the trade union movement, through the board members, will be exemplary.
There does not seem to be much disagreement over the guidelines. I have received no representations against them. As I said in Committee, the financial limits are fairly generous and the Minister will be involved above the limits. I approve of that.
Many of us are worried about the phrase "commercial viability" which is a common thread in the order and the guidelines and was referred to by the Minister. We need an explanation of what those words mean in Northern Ireland. Commercial viability means one thing in the rest of the United Kingdom but something different in Northern Ireland, which starts a pace behind Britain. The Minister must define the phrase more clearly.
I asked the board whether it would be responsible for defining those words and whether the phrase would give it sufficient flexibility. If the board has to operate within the Government's monetarist policies, it cannot expect to achieve much success. As long as the Minister recognises that commercial viability has a different meaning in the Northern Ireland context and the board has the necessary flexibility, I shall be happy. I want the scheme to be successful and I shall measure success by whether the Government get back quickly to the circumstances that they inherited in May 1979.
Much will depend on the board and the energy and drive of the chairman and board members. I commend the Minister for bringing together such a board. I have not met the chief executive, but he has fine credentials and world-wide experience—and he will need all of that. In addition, the Minister will have to throw off some of the dogma of the Government's monetarist policies and think a little more about the people of Northern Ireland.
There must be no more slip-ups, such as occurred over Hyster, which the Minister of State and the Secretary of State referred to in Committee. It was a rather unfortunate episode. The Industrial Development Board, the Minister and other officials in the Department must gear themselves up and not make such a mistake again. It was a terrible knock to confidence in Northern Ireland. During my visit I found that there seems to be an acceptance that the Province will cease to be an industrial area and that the disappearing jobs are a sign of the times. That should not happen.
The Opposition wish the board and the Minister all success for the future not only of the board but of the work force. We shall allow the order to go through without opposition and we hope that the board will bring success and more jobs, which are desperately needed, to Northern Ireland.

11 pm

Mr. James Molyneaux: As the right hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. Concannon) said, for certain reasons Ulster Members were not present last night in full strength. But if the Labour Party had had 20 per cent. of its members present and voting in the numerous Divisions on the Northern Ireland Bill, it would have a clean record and could look the people of Northern Ireland in the face. It may even select some candidates and test its policies at the polls.

Mr. Concannon: The difference is that we were not opposed to the Northern Ireland Bill. Is the hon. Gentleman saying that he supported the proposal to retain the 5 per cent. abatement?

Mr. Molyneaux: The right hon. Gentleman will recall that sometimes it was difficult for the Committee to discover whether the Labour Party were in favour of or opposed to the Northern Ireland Bill, because Labour Members said nothing. The right hon. Gentleman said that we spent much time on that Bill. That accusation could be levelled at the Government Front Bench, at my right hon. and hon. Friends and I and at other Ulster Members, but not at the right hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith, North (Mr. Soley) because they spoke on only two issues.
In our first debate in Committee on the Northern Ireland Bill at the end of March, the Minister said that he had appointed six members to the board. I regret that he enlarged that figure, because it has been our experience that, where decision-making is the vital consideration, six would be much more efficient than 12. If the enlarged board is sluggish because of its size, the result will be that decisions will be taken by the Minister, the chairman and the chief executive. That may not be bad, because speed is essential and we are in favour of streamlining and efficiency rather than trying to win the battle against unemployment by committee.
Article 5 provides that the board's functions will be

"(a) to advise the Head of the Department…
(b) oversee the exercise by the Executive of its functions."

The first function need not be a great problem because Ministers are accustomed to listening to advice and are well-versed in the art of disregarding it. I exclude the Minister of State from that category.
The second function is more likely to cause trouble. Ideally, the board would support, encourage and inspire its chief executive. A good board could always provide a bank of experience and knowledge, from which the chief executive could draw. But I fear that it will not do that. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) said in an earlier debate, it is more likely to form a layer of fog through which elected representatives and entrepreneurs alike will grope in search of answers and decisons. With the best will in the world, it is bound to be so. We have all found from experience that any structure interposed in the machinery of government always becomes a buffer behind which incompetence, inefficiency and indecision rapidly multiply. I fear that it will be so in this case.
In the second function there is a disturbing phrase that the advice is to be given
in relation to specific cases".
As one would expect, the draftsmen hedge their bets when they say

advise the Executive, both generally and in relation to specific cases".
One would expect any well-bred board to advise generally. That is what boards are for. The advice may be sound or unsound, but that will not prevent or inhibit it from offering advice. So we can take that as read.
Nevertheless, what is meant by
in relation to specific cases"?
Does it mean that the executive will seek the board's advice on projects of a rather doubtful nature? We have had far too many of them in Northern Ireland. Does it mean that the board will meddle and attempt to decide by committee? I hope that it means that the board, and particularly its chairman, will keep a general watch on events to ensure that disasters are avoided but that the chief executive will be free of all shackles and allowed to get on with his job of making things happen.
I hope, too, that the chairman will be encouraged to sanction and approve important decisions without waiting for the stated meeting of his board. In a competitive world—one example was brought to our notice tonight by the right hon. Member for Mansfield—delay can cost contracts and new jobs.
In short, the chairman of the new board will have to become almost as full-time as his chief executive. At this stage, perhaps I might be permitted to pay a sincere tribute to the chairman of the Northern Ireland Development Agency, Mr. Denis Faulkner. Over the years, he has proved to be a man of sound judgment and the utmost integrity. He has inculcated those qualities in his NIDA staff who, with their new colleagues from the combined Department of Commerce—formerly the Departments of Commerce and Manpower Services—will form the backbone of the administrative base of the new board.
The new structure faces a daunting challenge, as the Minister said. With a forecast rise in national unemployment to 3½ million, there will be a proportionate increase in the Northern Ireland figure, and of course, that increase will take much longer to reverse than in the rest of the United Kingdom. It is admitted that the causes of that disastrous total are varied and complex, but it is important that the scale of the jobless in Northern Ireland should be placed firmly on the record now so that the structure created by this order tonight and any elected body in Northern Ireland in the future will not be saddled with blame for further failures.
In recent months, Ulster has not been untouched by the boost in national morale. This contradicts what the right hon. Member for Mansfield said. He seems to have spoken to people of a pessimistic turn of mind when he was in Northern Ireland, and I hope that my right hon. and hon. Friends who have been there recently will take the opposite view. People are now eager to get on with their jobs and utilise those talents that have been smothered for several years. I hope that the amalgamated Departments and the new board will match that mood and, above all, recognise that theirs is an opportunity that may never come again.

Rev. Ian Paisley: I should like to make a brief comment on the speech of the right hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. Concannon). I shall not be afraid to face the electorate of Northern Ireland on the question of unemployment. I do not think that he would suggest that his hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, West


(Mr. Fitt), who was not here last night, was not interested in unemployment in Northern Ireland. The right hon. Gentleman knows the circumstances of Northern Ireland on 13 July.
I have consistently voted on the principle that a different employment policy should be pursued by the Government, as has my hon. Friend the Member for Down, North (Mr. Kilfedder). If the right hon. Gentleman checks the lists in the Lobby tonight he will find where my vote always lies in that regard. I am glad that the Government have promised that the 5 per cent. will be returned. I trust that that promise will be kept at the appropriate time.
We are discussing tonight the machinery under which jobs can be created, promoted and increased in Northern Ireland. To that end, Northern Ireland should have the best possible machinery. No hon. Member, and especially the unemployed and others in Northern Ireland, should be under any misapprehension that to have the proper machinery will suddenly resolve the cancer of unemployment in Northern Ireland. Northern Ireland has serious unemployment. It is a running sore in our community. However, I do not agree with the right hon. Member for Mansfield that people in Northern Ireland are not concerned about terrorism. The right to live is the most important right of all. If one does not have the right to live, the benefits of a job cannot be enjoyed.
I regret that the right hon. Gentleman did not visit the Unionist side of the fence on his visit to Northern Ireland. Had he done so, he might have had a more balanced view of events in Northern Ireland. Despite the dark and difficult days that people in Northern Ireland have undergone, there is a buoyant spirit there—the spirit of the Ulster-Scots that has been the foundation of Northern Ireland from its plantation. That spirit has always conquered and I am confident that it will conquer now.
I congratulate the Minister on his agreement on flexibility. It is important that there should be flexibility in the working of the new board and the executive. Without that, there will be more sad stories about job promoters who would have come, but who have gone elsewhere because of the difficulties and the insufficient flexibility. The House should face up to the fact that the Irish Republic is our competitor in this field. It will offer everything that it can to those in the United Kingdom who are interested in promoting new jobs. If they intend to choose Northern Ireland, there will be a play-off. Those who intend to come to Northern Ireland go to the Department to find what it can give them. They then go straight to Dublin to ask how much it will give them, and make their decision accordingly. I want the board to be flexible so that it can take decisions quickly.
The hon. Member for Antrim, South (Mr. Molyneaux) put his finger on it when he said that the decisions must be taken quickly. That is at the heart of our case. Industrialists who are keen to promote jobs and to set up manufacturing industries in Northern Ireland want a quick decision. Can the chairman and the executive make decisions without waiting for a regular board meeting? If there is to be a delay before a regular board meeting is held, we shall often miss the boat.
Has the Minister completed his nominations to the board? Is the board now complete? I am glad that the hon. Gentleman listened to the representations made by the Opposition, by my party's representatives and, particularly, in Committee by my hon. Friend the Member for

Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson). They requested that there should be two representatives from the trade union side. I am glad that the Minister conceded that point. I am also glad that they have not been appointed from the Irish Congress and that they are independent men with trade union experience. Indeed, Mr. John Freeman has already done signal service in this area. Those of us involved in job promotion know of his energy, dedication and commitment to bringing employment to Northern Ireland. I am sure that Mr. Freeman's colleague will share the same spirit. All who are appointed to the board will no doubt be dedicated and I trust that that dedication will show.
We stressed to the Minister that there should be a place on the board for Sir Charles Carter, chairman of the Northern Ireland Economic Council. I do not know whether he has yet reached a decision. Unfortunately, I was unable to attend the last meeting, but I read the report of it. I believe that the Minister talked to Sir Charles Carter about that. Therefore, I hope that the Minister will say whether he has completed his nominations to the board and whether Sir Charles Carter is to be a member.
Indeed, I pay tribute to Sir Charles Carter and to the way in which he has chaired the Northern Ireland Economic Council. His independence has encouraged those of us who want to hear that independent voice I trust that the Minister will make a full statement about that. I understood the Minister to say that the Executive will be able to give grants of up to £5 million, excluding factory accommodation. That shows the Minister's liberality. Is the Minister to suggest a ceiling on job costs? That is an important point. Indeed, I think that the right hon. Member for Mansfield raised it in Committee. I do not want the Minister to tell us that that is the limit and that that is that, but perhaps he will comment on it and confirm that there will be some flexibility and that the board will be able to deal realistically with job costs.
There are many factors that tell against job promotion and the solution of the unemployment problem in Northern Ireland. Northern Ireland is short of natural resources. It has difficulty with transport and high energy costs. At the heart of the problem lies terrorism. Terrorists who burn buses in Londonderry, make railway lines unusable and destroy property, tell against the injection of money and investment in the Province. There is a world recession and the Government's monetary policy has been detrimental to Northern Ireland.
The Minister has to face up to the fact that, if we are to obtain outside investment, the Government must put their money where their mouth is. They have to invest in Northern Ireland. That is important. I trust that the Minister will be able to push the Treasury on those matters, and that we shall have news of Government investment in Northern Ireland. That is of the utmost importance.
There is no doubt that the credentials of Mr. Tate, the new executive member, are very fine. I listened to the first broadcast he made in Northern Ireland, and I believe that he struck the right note when he talked about the importance of promoting indigenous industry. The indigenous firms which have borne the brunt of the trouble should be encouraged to expand their work forces. In that way vital progress will be made.
Many employers say to the representatives of the public "If we had a southern American drawl and a large cowboy hat we might get more money from the Department. Because we are Ulstermen we do not get the


encouragement that we should." Whether the Minister likes it or not, that is the opinion of people in Northern Ireland. The right hon. Member for Mansfield knows that that opinion is held. It should be made obvious immediately that this new board will encourage indigenous industry. Encouragement must be given to local firms and men to keep them in business. Some of the speeches made in Committee underlined that important fact. I trust that the Minister will take that on board.
I find it difficult to decide where the responsibility of the board and the executive end and where the Minister's responsibility takes over. Is the Minister in overall control? To whom is the board accountable? Will the Minister elighten us on that, or does he find it difficult to decide where the board's responsibility begins and ends? I hope that the board, the executive and its chairman will be able to make some impression on unemployment in Northern Ireland. They have the good wishes of the people. There is plenty of good will. I trust that it will do a good job.
I associate myself with the remarks of the hon. Member for Antrim, South about Mr. Faulkner and the work that he did with the Northern Ireland Development Agency. Some of us had differences with NIDA, naturally, but we did not impugn the integrity of those who managed it and worked with it. I trust that some progress will be made and that the Minister will be able to announce that jobs are coming to Northern Ireland. I trust that firms that are bearing the burden and heat of the day will advance and strengthen their hold on the Northern Ireland economy.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: Some remarks by the right hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. Concannon) had the effect of ruffling feelings in the House, As one of those who, with my hon. Friend the Member for Londonderry (Mr. Ross), was in the Lobby—and the right Lobby—last night, I did not take that part of the right hon. Gentleman's observation too personally and was not wounded by it. But I was distressed by something else that he said, which appeared to show that he had gathered the impression of a atmoshpere of apathy and resignation in the Province.
I join hon. Members from both Antrim constituencies in repudiating that. The right hon. Gentleman must have been in very strange company indeed. It was untypical company. I have had the good fortune in the last three days to attend no fewer than two conferments of the Queen's award for industry involving major productive units in the Province and in a town in my constituency. There was no doubt whatsoever that the vigour and resilience of those who worked and managed the firms had made a decisive contribution to the export success of the two undertakings.
It is a travesty to present the people of Northern Ireland as apathetic and not vigorous and enterprising in their outlook. With all the heavy unemployment, a striking feature, which all—except the right hon. Gentleman—who visit Northern Ireland recognise, is that there remains a sense of enterprise and hopefulness.
I should not like any remarks by the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) to induce hon. Members less well acquainted than they should be with Northern Ireland history to equate Ulster and its beginnings with the plantation. There was an Ulster—and a distinctive

Ulster—clearly continuous with the one that we know today, long before the plantation. The effect of the plantation has been grossly exaggerated, numerically and in other respects.
Of course, the Scottish dimension about which my hon. Friend the Member for Antrim, South (Mr. Molyneaux), much to the irritation of the Northern Ireland Office, talks from time to time, is a reality. As one who represents Down, South I am in the position to understand that many more elements than the Scottish element have entered into the unique personality of Ulster.
I assure the House that Ulster's personality is one not only of determination, but of hopefulness and enterprise, even in adversity. I am sorry that the right hon. Member for Mansfield was unable to find it when so many others find it so evident.
It would be unfortunate if we did not realise, in approving the order, what a constitutional chimera is being created by this decision. The Minister was frank and helpful this evening in his analysis of the constitutional position that will be created. He said that the whole will be within the ultimate responsibility of Ministers. I do not think that that can be faulted. He said that there would be two sections of the new Department—one would be the executive and the other would be the rest of the Department—and that the board, statutorily speaking, in so far as statutory responsibilities are concerned, would be largely of an advisory character.
I think that that is a correct statement of the position, as I understand it in the terms of the order, but it leaves us with a potential difficulty in the future because the Minister proposes to devolve—if I may dare to use that word—certain functions which are functions of his Department to the executive working for that purpose under the oversight of the board. The fact that he does so and takes that decision does not, however, alter his financial and his political responsibilities to the House. For all the decisions that get taken, even for the smallest decision within the guidelines which is taken by the executive, even in the matters where he intends to be substantially guided by the advice of the board, the decision in the end and the action will be ministerial. It will be action for which he is responsible.
I do not regard that, as I have said in previous debates upon this subject, as being a defect. On the contrary, there are great advantages in ministerial responsibility being undivided and clear. The danger that I see is that too much will be expected of the quasi-independence—the Minister went so far as to use the words "effective autonomy" in his speech—which will attach to the executive and to the board. We are not creating a new Heaven and a new earth. We have not discovered a method whereby the autonomy of a part of a Department or the autonomous advice of the board can be combined with the overall ministerial responsibility.
There will be least misunderstanding if it is grasped at the outset that this board, for all that we say about it, will be advisory, hortatory and encouraging in its activities. It will not be executive. It will not be a board that will take its own line. It cannot be a board that will strike out a new policy or a policy of its own in the financing of employment and industrial development in the Province. That responsibility will lie in the proper place, where the money is answered for. It will lie with the Minister.
I am not sure that the effect of dressing up that reality—an advisory board on the one hand and ministerial


responsibility on the other—by the device of the executive and the oversight of the board will not cause more misunderstanding and perhaps, at a later stage, more heartburning than the effort was worth.
It is all very well for us to make speeches now before the organisation comes into existence, but it is when mistakes are made and are seen retrospectively to have been made in industrial development, when projects that people believe should have come to Northern Ireland do not come to Northern Ireland, and when opportunities that people believe should have been taken appear to have been neglected that the criticism will start and the pressure will begin to be exerted. It will be futile in those circumstances to suppose that the board or the executive will be able to take the responsibility. They will not. They will say "We gave this or that advice" and the executive will say "This executive is a part of the Department."
If there were any doubt about that relationship, it is made clear enough in the wording of article 6(6)(a), which relates to cases where the board has given advice to the executive and the executive has not taken it or has done the other thing. In those circumstances the board is given the right to demand a public explanation. It is the head of the Department—in present circumstances the Minister—who furnishes the explanation and takes that responsibility. So the true relationship is revealed.
One hopes that the board will contribute something by its advice and encouragement and by the information and experience of its members. However, in the end we are relying upon the finance which is provided by the House—indirectly, perhaps, but still by the House and under the authority of the House—and the judgment and the administration of the Department to do whatever can be done for employment and enterprise in the Province on the lines of the order. It is just as well at the outset that that should not be open to misunderstanding.

Mr. Adam Butler: It is pleasant to have had such a general welcome for the order. It is equally pleasant, despite the late hour, to have had it analysed, not least by the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell). I have a sufficient number of minutes left to try to deal with most of the matters that have been raised. I shall not enter into the little argument, which is not entirely related to our affairs tonight, which seems to have hung over from 13 July. I was in the Province on that day enjoying myself, but I returned for the vote in question.
The way in which the executive and the board will interrelate and the way in which decisions will be taken go to the crux of the order. The appointment of two trade unionists brought the number on the board to 10, which leaves two places below the maximum of 12. Those two places will be filled as and when we find the appropriate persons to fill them.
As I said in Committee, Sir Charles Carter would have made a considerable contribution to the affairs of the board. I discussed with him the possibility of his serving on it. However, I put it to him that as chairman of the economic council, which is essentially an independent body, it would be probably best if he were to retain that independence entirely by remaining as its chairman and not involving himself immediately in the affairs of the board. Reference has been made to that independence, and I believe that Sir Charles and I saw very much eye to eye.
The hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) said that he was glad to learn of the £5 million in grants towards projects that created employment. That was probably a slight slip of the tongue because £5 million is a total possible figure made up of £3 million of grant and, where appropriate, up to £2 million-worth of equity investment, plus—again where appropriate—training grants and the provision of a lease of a factory. Those are fairly substantial sums. They are the right ones in the circumstances.
The cost per job figures operate at the moment and will continue to do so. For obvious reasons, they will remain confidential, but they will operate according to the various zones that represent the different degrees of need in the Province.
I am always pleased to repeat, although I should not have to do so so often, that under Government policy and, according to the right hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. Concannon), Labour Party policy, there is always support for indigenous industry. The same grants are available to indigenous companies as are available to others that might wish to invest in Northern Ireland. Sometimes selective assistance to companies coming in to Northern Ireland works out higher as such investment tends to be mobile—there is not much of it about at the moment—and one must pay fairly highly for it.
The hon. Member for Antrim, South (Mr. Molyneaux) said that the board should be smaller. If we were discussing an executive board, I might agree. The proposed one, however, is advisory by statute. It will need to draw on a great breadth of experience and undertake committee work. A board of the type that the hon. Gentleman suggested, therefore, might be too small. I refute his suggestion that such a board would provide a layer of fog or a buffer behind which incompetence could flourish. That is not in the nature of the beast or of the individuals who will serve on the board. Perhaps that will emerge when I deal with the two crucial points of the debate.
I gave my description of what we mean by commercial viability with some care. We shall amplify as appropriate in the guidelines. The projects about which the Industrial Development Board advises on financial support must, with the benefit of that financial support, be expected to succeed and prosper. They must be expected to be viable. The board will not be expected to put public money into hopeless causes. To that extent, I may fall out with the right hon. Member for Mansfield, but I believe not.
Cases that should be supported for social reasons would not be a matter for the processes that I have described. Although the board will give its advice, the decision will rest firmly with the Minister. There may be circumstances when the Minister judges that for social reasons the test of commercial viability should not apply. With regard to the Industrial Development Board, however, that test must apply. That is desirable to ensure the proper use of public money.

Mr. Concannon: The Minister is getting on to the same plane in suggesting that there may be a political input in some of the decisions because the social background is a political input. If he is saying that that is part of commercial viability, that is fine with me. That is part and parcel of the package in Northern Ireland. The social


package is involved in the political decisions. Only the Minister can make those decisions, and in doing so he will sometimes have to overrule the board.

Mr. Butler: I think that that is a fair assessment, although one should perhaps also point out that the extent of grant aid and financial support that the board and the executive may have at their disposal will take into account the social needs of particular areas of the Province. For instance, the availability of the higher rates of assistance will itself reflect the social needs of areas of particularly high unemployment. Having applied the maximum grant to a project, the board and the executive must then assess whether the project can succeed with the benefit of that grant. That is the test of commercial viability—whether the project will be able to stand on its own feet once that money has been put behind it.
The relationship between the board and the executive and the Minister has been debated at length. We have tried to find and, I believe, have succeeded in finding, the best solution. In Northern Ireland, inevitably, large sums of money are spent generally and specifically on industrial development and it is right that there should be full accountability for such expenditure. Equally, decisions in regard to that expenditure need to be taken with the full benefit of commercial experience. As has been emphasised again today, the decisions should be taken swiftly and as far as possible without the contraints of what I would describe as excessive bureaucracy.
Therefore, we have tried to find a way in which to use all the advantages of the private sector in taking such decisions while still clearly providing for proper accountability. I do not believe that there is any contradiction in what we propose, although I acknowledge that we shall have to see how the relationships work out in practice. All those concerned—including myself, but particularly the chief executive, who will come new to his job, and the chairman of the board who will also be taking on a job that is in a sense new to him—will have to feel their way and discover how best to work together.

Mr. John Dunlop: Will the Minister or his colleagues make it their business to direct the activities of this new organisation to those parts of Northern Ireland in which unemployment is of stupendous proportions? I refer, of course, to places such as Strabane and Cookstown. Will they come in for special attention to relieve the very high unemployment there? The Minister hinted earlier that ministerial activity would be somewhat limited but that the people appointed would be acting strongly to bring about some relief of unemployment in the Province. Will the Minister, with his knowledge of those areas, undertake that that will be done?

Mr. Butler: The brief answer is that in the same way that the Department and I have not made it our practice to direct investment to any particular part of the Province, the Industrial Development Board will not do so either. If its members are not aware of the needs of certain parts of the Province—it should be remembered that they are all

Ulstermen—no doubt they will become aware of them very quickly and will seek in the same way as Ministers and officials, and the Northern Ireland Development Agency as appropriate, have sought in the past to encourage investment in those areas in which the need is so great. Moreover, they will have available the higher rates of grant that apply in such areas.
I come back to the relationship that the right hon. Member for Down, South explored with his usual thoroughness. I do not find it difficult to envisage that decisions on individual cases of a certain size can be left, in effect, to a board to advise on and an executive to act on. The reason for leaving such decisions to the board and the executive is exactly to meet the point made on previous occasions, and again tonight, that decisions should be taken swiftly and with speed, but also taken on the best commercial judgment.
There are three important safeguards. The first is the financial limits. Although we refer to these as being comparatively generous, they are still, in each individual case, strictly limited. The second safeguard is the position of the chief executive, acting in his capacity as an accounting officer. I refer to a sentence in the draft guidelines which states:
Where the Chief Executive considers that for him to proceed on the advice of the Board would be inconsistent with his role as Accounting Officer, he shall report the matter to the Minister".
This means that the chief executive, as a civil servant and as an accounting officer in the Department, will have the same responsibilities as he would have if that board did not exist. The third safeguard concerns the position of the Minister. I do not feel that I am putting myself at risk by giving this effective freedom to the board and the executive to operate. I have, in that cohesive unity of the board and the executive, a man who is an accounting officer in the Department and who also will be charged with one responsibility—to draw to the Minister's attention such cases where he believes that there may be a doubt and where the Minister should have the opportunity to comment before the cases go to the board. That, too, is written in the guidelines and was referred to in committee.
The procedures that we have laid down can meet the points made by the right hon. Gentleman, particularly on accountability and ultimate rsponsibility, but equally give the swiftness and commercial nature that we want for the operations of the board.
The right hon. Member for Mansfield said that he wished, with the best will in the world, to see the new Industrial Development Board succeed. I cannot ask for more than that from the right hon. Gentleman in his capacity, leading for the Opposition. His feelings have been expressed by others who have spoken in the debate. With that good spirit behind it, I commend the board and executive to the Province and I commend the order to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That the draft Industrial Development (Northern Ireland) Order 1982, which was laid before this House on 17 June, be approved.

Orders of the Day — Gaelic Athletic Association (Grants)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Archie Hamilton.]

Mr. William Ross: The Minister will be aware that I tabled questions on two occasions to seek information on the amount of money paid to the Gaelic Athletic Association from public funds in Northern Ireland. The first question was answered on 7 July 1980 and the second—by sheer chance—on 7 July 1982.
As a result of those questions, I discovered that between 10 June 1962 and 31 March 1980, the GAA benefited from public funds to the extent of £330,682. For the second period, a further £243,427 was paid to it. The grants from the Department of Education in the period June 1962 to March 1982 totalled £520,000, and in general were for pavilions and the purchase of pitches and equipment. The Sports Council gave a further £4,453 for equipment, and the rest, £48,741, also came from the Sports Council for administration, training, coaching and travel costs. As well as this, the GAA has benefited from various summer schemes and the provision of pitches organised and provided by councils.
These sums were all paid because successive Governments have decided to treat the GAA as a normal sporting and recreational body that carries out useful work in those areas and is, therefore, worthy of support. That Government perception is not shared by anyone in Northern Ireland who knows anything whatever about the organisation. The general perception there is of an organisation that exists primarily for a political purpose and that it is using its sporting ventures as an ancillary to forward that political purpose.
The Minister must surely be aware of the bitter reactions that are aroused among those who are opposed to the GAA's political objectives whenever and wherever it tries to establish its presence. It will try establish its presence at every opportunity, whether or not it is welcome in the area.
I accept that there is no point in my making such allegations against this organisation unless I am prepared to submit evidence to support my contentions. As evidence from sources hostile to the GAA would, I believe, not be acceptable to the Government, I shall in the main confine myself to what is obtainable from its own official sources.
First, I refer to revised rules 1 to 32 of the official guide, in which the GAA charter states:
The name of the Association shall be 'The Gaelic Athletic Association' … The Association is a National Organisation which has as its basic aim the strengthening of the National Identity in a 32 county Ireland through the preservation and promotion of Gaelic games and pastimes … The Association further seeks to achieve its objectives through the active support of Irish culture, with a constant emphasis on the importance of the preservation of the Irish language and its greater use in the life of the nation; and, in the development of a community spirit, to foster an awareness and love of the national ideals in the people of Ireland … The membership and resources of the Association shall be utilised for and dedicated solely to the foregoing aims".
Clearly, the GAA sees those aims as being fulfilled only in a united Ireland outside the United Kingdom, and it seeks that as its first objective, for the membership and resources of the association are in the first instance used and dedicated to that political objective.
Rule 9 states that the Irish language is to be used whenever and wherever it is possible to use it.
Rule 15 discriminates against persons on the grounds of nationality and job. It states:
British soldiers, navy men, and police shall not be eligible for membership of the Association".
That rule was originally drawn up in 1884, so the Royal Air Force is excluded because it did not exist at that time.
The rule continues:
A member of the Association participating in dances or similar entertainments, promoted by or under the patronage of such bodies, shall incur suspension for at least 3 months".
There is a coercive force behind the ban, and that is applied to the general public who are admitted to the association.
Rule 31 prohibits all other games in grounds under the control of the GAA.
There I end my quotations from the revised rules, which were published on 22 May 1971. The official guide that preceded them is a much larger document—

Mr. James Molyneautx: The authorised version.

Mr. Ross: As my hon. Friend says, it was the authorised version. It was published in 1966. It is a comprehensive document and if the Minister has not yet managed to procure a copy, no doubt he will do so and read it later.
The document starts by saying that there are legions of voluntary workers willing to make sacrifices to promote the association's ideals and carry out its daily purpose. It asks why it receives this unselfish support. This sections continues:
Those who play its games, those who organise its activities and those who control its destinies see in the GAA a means of consolidating our Irish identity. The games to them are more than games—they have a national significance—and the promotion of native pastimes becomes a part of the full national ideal … The primary purpose of the GAA is the organisation of native pastimes and the promotion of athletic fitness as a means to create a disciplined, self-reliant, national-minded manhood … Since she has not control over all the national territory, Ireland's claim to nationhood is impaired.
This is a threat used throughout the whole of not only the association but republicanism in Ireland in general.
To-day, the native games take on a new significance when it is realised that they have been a part, and still are a part, of the nation's desire to live her own life, to govern her own affairs.
Those who are unaware of the conditions that called the GAA into being, and of the national significance that attaches to the native games may be forgiven if, to them, one game is as good as another. But those who know our country's history and understand the role that the GAA has played in it will see that, until complete nationhood is achieved, the Association must continue to maintain an all-embracing patriotic spirit … This national side of the GAA and its dedication to the ideal of an Irish-Ireland must be kept to the forefront at all times. To the youth of Ireland, a knowledge of the circumstances in which the GAA was founded, of the part it played in the years before the Rising of 1916, of the share its members had in the fight for freedom, is merely knowledge of their own inheritance and should not be withheld from them. Such knowledge would mark out the native games as more than mere games and would show that the Association which promotes them has had, and still has, a strong influence for National good.
Had we but more time, I could spend an hour at least on the short section that I have already read, to explain what it means in an Irish context. I only wish that there were more hon. Members here to understand it.
On page 15 of the same paper, it says:
MICHAEL CUSACK conceived in the Association a powerful bulwark against the inroads of alien influences and ideas of existence. He was the uncompromising champion of all distinctive Gaelic traditions, institutions and cultural possessions and fashioned the GAA as a future army of resurgent Gaeldom.


Dr. Croke is mentioned. It says:
Dr. Croke realised the immense moral benefits to be gained by organisation and discipline and as an advocate of national independence, he saw in those self-disciplined ranks an invaluable force for the attainment of that long-sought goal.
Dr. Croke was the patron of the association and was the Roman Catholic Archbishop of Cashel and Emly. This is the letter that he wrote on 18 December 1884, and there is no reason to suppose that the Gaelic association and those who support it have changed their attitude in the intervening 98 years. He says:
One of the most painful, let me assure you, and, at the same time, one of the most frequently recurring reflections that, as an Irishman, I am compelled to make in connection with the present aspect of things in this country, is derived from the ugly and irritating fact, that we are daily importing from England, not only her manufactured goods, which we cannot help doing, since she has practically strangled our own manufacturing appliances, but, together with her fashions, her accents, her vicious literature, her music, her dances, and her manifold mannerisms, her games also, and her pastimes, to the utter discredit of our own grand national sports, and to the sore humiliation, as I believe, of every genuine son and daughter of the old land.
Ball-playing, hurling, football-kicking according to Irish rules, 'casting', leaping in various ways, wrestling, handy-grips, top-pegging, leap-frog, rounders, tip-in-the hat, and all such favourite exercises and amusements amongst men and boys may now be said to be not only dead and buried, but in several localities to be entirely forgotten and unknown. And what have we got in their stead? We have got such foreign and fantastic field sports as lawn tennis—
I wonder what Mr. Connors and Mr. McEnroe would think of that—
polo"—
I wonder what His Royal Highness would think of that—
croquet, cricket and the like".
I understand that recently the SDLP chairman of Magherafelt council refused to allow a message of congratulations to be sent to the Northern Ireland soccer team on the ground that it was playing a foreign game. That demonstrates that that attitude still underlies the whole approach of the GAA.
There is much more that I could say, but I must not detain the House. No doubt the Under-Secretary will read the words of Dr. Croke:
there is something rather pleasing to the eye in the get-up of a modern young man, who arrayed in light attire, with particoloured cap on and a racquet in hand, making his way, with or without a companion, to the tennis ground.
Evidently he did not think much of tennis or any other such game.
Rule 10 on page 39 demands that the Irish flag be displayed at all matches. It mentions the national flag, but it means the tricolour. That proclaims the right to rule over a 32-county Ireland and it is the rejection of this House and the Queen's writ. Even if the House does not understand that, the people of Northern Ireland do. That is why the concept of flying the tricolour at Gaelic games rouses such fury in the heart and mind of the ordinary Ulster citizen.
Rule 27 on page 53 provides:
Any member who plays, attends, or helps to promote Rugby, Soccer, Hockey, or Cricket thereby incurs automatic suspension from membership of the Association.
Rule 28 provides that the chairman has the right to appoint vigilante members to
visit centres within the County, Province, or area … where excluded games and entertainments are held and to report to the Officer responsible … the attendance of members of the Association".

That rule has been modified, but the ethos remains. Rule 29 on page 54 provides:
A Council, Committee, or Club shall not organise any entertainment at which foreign dances are permitted. No Club or Club Committee shall hold a dance, until it shall have submitted its programme to the County Committee, and until it has been approved of by them.
The penalty for a breach of the rules is, of course, suspension.
Rule 42 on page 61 provides:
County committees shall have power to confine membership of clubs to the parish in which players reside or work.
That is the parish under the jurisdiction of a parish priest. It is a sectarian rule, although it may not appear so on the surface. The boundaries used are those of the Roman Catholic Church's parishes. Rule 82 provides that Sunday play, which is obnoxious to so many in Northern Ireland, is one of the criteria for the playing of finals in Dublin. It does not matter where the games are played; the fact that the rules are specific on that point is sufficient to raise many hackles in Ulster.
Rule 88 states:
For inter-county games each Minor and Under-21 Championship player shall procure an authenticated parochial certificate of age.
That is also a sectarian rule, because it refers to the Roman Catholic parochial certificate of age. Rule 110 on page 55 provides that meetings of the governing body shall take place on Sundays—again violating many of the standards of Sunday observance in Northern Ireland.
The only implication of all those rules is that my contention that political objectives are paramount for the GAA is correct, as is my contention that it discriminates against persons on grounds of nationality and the jobs that they do.
The right of the GAA to be treated as a normal sporting and recreational body was challenged by Magherafelt district council. The council lost the case, but only, I am advised, on a narrow point of law. The action was raised under section 19 of the Northern Ireland Constitution Act 1973, which covers discrimination by public authorities. It is followed up by section 23 of the Act. I shall not weary the Minister by reading it all. I am sure that in his preparation for the debate he has considered the case in the Northern Ireland Constitution Act 1973.
Section 19 of the 1973 Act is weaker than the Sex Discrimination (Northern Ireland) Order and the Fair Employment (Northern Ireland) Act 1976, both of which contain express provisions against indirect discrimination. Section 19 covers only direct discrimination by the governing body. I hope that the Minister will read all the rules soon because I do not wish him to rely only on my words, as the Secretary of State did recently in relation to false reports fed to him about Linfield football club. But if he reads the rules and has heard what I say tonight, I hope that the Minister will refuse further grants to the Gaelic Athletic Association.
Judge Murray found for Purvis in the case against Magherafelt district council on the ground that the coaching scheme dropped by the council was not a direct subsidy to the Gaelic Athletic Association because it involved rental. The gist of the judge's remarks was that if a coaching scheme directly aided the Gaelic Athletic Association—if the council had proposed to hand over a substantial sum of money to the association to enable it to run a scheme—because of the continued existence of rule 15, the point made by the council's counsel would have


been formidable. The point raised by the council's solicitor was that the rent paid to the GAA for a GAA pitch was subsidising a discriminatory body. The judge held that such a rent was a straightforward commercial, economic, transaction and the council failed to maintain its case.
Judge Murray seems to have concluded that, as the quesion of subsidy did not arise, the council had to proceed with its scheme. However, the grants about which we are talking tonight are a direct subsidy to the GAA—the very point that the judge brought to the Government's attention. But the Government of the day did not follow up the matter.
The Northern Ireland Constitution Act 1973 prohibits any public authority from discriminating against any person or class of persons on grounds of religious belief or political opinion. There have been decisions in American courts on cases of racial discrimination that could be called in aid if the Government decided to challenge the GAA's right to grants. Those cases, which went to the Supreme Court, said that a Government body could not allow indirect discrimination where it would not be allowed to discriminate indirectly.
The GAA provides facilities to its members for the playing of Gaelic sports and rule 15 prohibits those who serve in the Army, Navy and police force from becoming members. That is political discrimination, as can be seen clearly in the context of the other rules. In the light of that, the provision of State funds to the association is unlawful as long as it retains rule 15.
My objections are not to the games played by the GAA. I play no game, I support no game and I support no team. I care little whether players carry, catch, kick, throw or hit a ball, or whether they go hang-gliding or parachute jumping. It is up to them. I ask only that it is done with some respect for other people's views and attitudes.
My objections are to the motives behind the games played by the GAA. It promotes a series of games and sports not for the sake of the game or the enjoyment of the players. The atmosphere is completely different from that experienced at international soccer, rugby or cricket matches, or even in the World Cup soccer matches, despite the emotional outpourings to which we have been subjected on our television screens recently.
All support from public funds should cease forthwith, and let the GAA take the Government to court for discrimination in an effort to get it back. It is far better to spend the cash on restoring such things as swimming lessons for children who have been deprived of them. That at least might save some of their lives. That would be far better than subsidising an organisation which is master race motivated, discriminatory, bigoted and anti-British.

The Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Nicholas Scott): Unlike the hon. Member for Londonderry (Mr. Ross), I play a number of sports. I must say that I feel a little like a cricket captain who is now faced with a declaration with little time left in which to make the necessary runs to secure victory.
I start by dealing with the money given to GAA clubs. It is important to see the grants in perspective. Between 1962 and 1982, the GAA received a total of £445,000 in grant. To put that into perspective, in the year 1980–81—the latest year for which figures were readily available—the Department of Education made grants totalling about £5·5 million to district councils for the

provision of sport and recreation facilities. The grant received by the GAA was about 9 per cent. of the total grants that were made to voluntary sporting clubs by the Department—not the total amount of grants that were made, but the limited amount of money that was given to voluntary sporting clubs.
I accept many of the hon. Gentleman's criticisms of the rules of the GAA, but we should remember that the payment of grants to assist GAA clubs and other voluntary sports clubs with restricted membership—there are many sports clubs in Northern Ireland that restrict their membership in one way or another—dates from a decision taken by the Stormont Government in 1959 which, in turn, led to the enactment of the Youth Welfare, Physical Training and Recreation Act (Northern Ireland) 1962. So this is not something that has suddenly occurred or something that has resulted from direct rule or from decisions taken by this Government; it stems from decisions that were taken by the Stormont Administration well before the enactment of direct rule.
In many ways I find the rules and aims of the GAA, the claims that it makes, the nature of the restrictions imposed, and the nature of the rules that it makes for those sports, repugnant, and in particular rule 15, which refers to British policemen and members of the Army and Navy. It is entirely alien to the attitude of sportsmen in Ireland as a whole and sportsmen in Northern Ireland to have such restrictions in the rules of any club or association. I and other Ministers will do our best to persuade and urge the association to change it. As I say, there are other clubs in Northern Ireland which have restricted entry.
As the hon. Gentleman knows, there are totally different rates of grant for open and restricted voluntary sports clubs. Since 1962 —this, again, stems from the Stormont period—clubs with restricted membership receive grants of 33⅓ per cent., whereas clubs with open membership receive 50 per cent. grants. So there is a form of discrimination against clubs that restrict in their membership, and if they wish to retain that discrimination, they forgo grant.
It is worth repeating that all that stems from decisions that were taken by a Stormont Government with an overwhelming Unionist majority. The hon. Gentleman mentioned the publication of the rules and aims of the GAA in 1966. If one looks at the grants given by the Department of Education in Northern Ireland they were £400, £750, £180 and £600 in successive years up to 1966–67. Immediately after that publication there was a dramatic change in the grants made to GAA clubs. They increased from a few hundred pounds to £9,700, £3,500 and £6,700 in the three succeeding years.
However offensive the aims might have been to the hon. Gentleman, there is no doubt that immediately following the publication of the document making those aims clear, the Stormont Government saw no difficulty in dramatically increasing the grants that were being made to those clubs.
I do not see a breach of section 19 of the Northern Ireland Constitution Act 1973. That was raised about four years ago. I doubt whether any court would find that the exclusions under rule 15 and others raised by the hon. gentleman are on grounds of religious belief or political opinion.
In closing, I say that although I find rule 15 and others of the GAA repugnant, as I am sure they are to other hon. Members, it is worth reiterating the role that sport has


played in Northern Ireland in crossing the sectarian divide. The hon. Gentleman and the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) may find that a matter of great hilarity but—

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: I find it irrelevant.

Mr. Scott: The right hon. Gentleman may take that view, but I do not agree with him. The GAA has its rules and I find them repugnant, but the right hon. Gentleman should recognise, as I do, the role that sport plays in crossing the division between the communities.
Many of the clubs have done a great deal to bring the communities together. Although hon. Members may unite in declaring repugnant the GAA's attitude, it does not stop us paying tribute to the many other sports men in Northern Ireland and, indeed, in the island of Ireland, who see sport as a way of crossing the divide between the communities.
To see an Irish rugby team and a Northern Ireland soccer team bringing great achievements, with no divisions between the communites, is a great lesson to the GAA and to all those who try to bring sectarianism into sport.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-three minutes past Twelve o'clock.